Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

B.E.A. Jet Aircraft (Aircrew)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Aviation if, in the interest of air safety, he will give a general direction to British European Airways to include a flight engineer amongst the crew of all their jet aeroplanes.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): No, Sir. The only jet aeroplane in the British European Airways fleet is the Comet IVB; the Certificate of Airworthiness for this aircraft provides that the crew to operate it should consist of either three pilots or two pilots and one flight engineer. I see no reason for me to seek to influence the Corporation's choice.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that this decision has been very strongly opposed by the flying staff section of the International Transport Workers Federation and also by the British Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers Association?

Is it not also the case that B.O.A.C. includes a flight engineer, and can the Minister give an assurance that these planes will be safe with this reduced staff?

Mr. Sandys: I must be guided by the views of the Air Registration Board. It has left the alternative to the airlines of having either three pilots or two pilots and one flight engineer. The fact that other airlines have chosen the alternative does not seem to me to suggest that B.E.A. is necessarily wrong.

Factory, Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Aviation what representations he has received regarding the future of the Vickers Armstrong's factory near Swindon; what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be continuity of employment at this factory and that it will revert to its proper function of producing aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Apart from a note from the hon. Member, containing an extract from a statement by a shop stewards Committee, my right hon. Friend has as yet received no representations on this subject. The use to which this factory will be put when the current order for naval aircraft is completed is a matter for the management to decide.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, but is the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister aware that, in fact, there is very great anxiety both among


the men engaged on this work and also on the part of the management that this factory is now turning over from aircraft production to other jobs, that there is the danger of skilled teams of trained technicians being broken up and lost, as is happening elsewhere, and also great anxiety that if more Vanguards are not sold quickly the firm will not break even on them, and there is a danger of the VC10 missing the market? Can I have an assurance that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will be looking very carefully at the position?

Mr. Rippon: We are not here concerned with the production of the VC10. As to the other general observations which the hon. Gentleman has made, I am bound to say, of course, that the allocation of work by a firm to its particular factories is a matter for the firm. We have no reason to expect any redundancy here.

Rotodyne Aircraft

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation whether firm arrangements have now been made between his Department and the Fairey Aviation Company to develop the Rotodyne aircraft.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Aviation what further developments have taken place between his Department and the Fairey Aviation Company to develop the Rotodyne aircraft.

Mr. Sandys: Last August the Government decided to contribute to the cost of developing a Tyne engined version of the Rotodyne to meet the requirements of B.E.A. and the Services, on terms which were agreed with the firm, subject to negotiation of a detailed contract. The terms included an undertaking by the Government to reimburse the company for the whole of its subsequent development costs should a specified minimum production order not be placed. A contract embodying this arrangement was recently sent to the firm for its signature. However, it has informed me in a letter (which I received this morning) that it is no longer prepared to proceed on the terms envisaged last August, and that it wants additional Government financial assistance, to an

extent which it has not yet specified. I have asked my Department to discuss this unsatisfactory position with the firm forthwith.

Mr. Skeffington: Would not the Minister agree that this is a very unfortunate position, because this aircraft, which is of very novel design, has been hanging about for a long period of time, some men have already been dispersed or dismissed, and there is a real danger, I understand, that the production team in the factory may not be able to be kept there much longer if some finality cannot be reached? I am sure the Minister will agree that the matter needs urgent attention now?

Mr. Sandys: I explained in my answer that I thought we had settled this matter with the firm last August when we decided to support the Tyne-engined version, although we still had not a firm order from B.E.A. I do not know what has been going wrong now, but we shall look into it right away.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the importance of this development from the national point of view, if the firm is unreasonable in its attitude and refuses to play, will the Minister consider the most drastic action, if necessary invoking war-time action and taking this firm over?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think it is a very strong firm, but I would not go to the length the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister ask the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to read the last report of the Fairey Aviation Company, when he might be more enlightened on the financial position of the company? Leaving that aside, will my right hon. Friend take that point into account and consider this matter in the light of the rationalisation of the industry which he expects to take place, in order to see that the country does not lose this very worth-while project?

Mr. Sandys: That is my main concern.

Private Flying

Mr. Collard: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to encourage private flying in Great Britain.

Mr. Rippon: The Government help private and club flying by landing concessions at certain Government aerodromes; reduced rates for housing and parking; rebate of petrol tax for club aircraft; payment for use of club facilities by the Air Training Corps; and moderated airworthiness arrangements. The Standing Joint Committee on Private and Club Flying has prepared a specification for a cheap V.H.F. radio set and is preparing another for an economical light aircraft.

Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of this assistance, private flying and flying clubs in general are in a bad way? Does he agree that perhaps one of the best ways of helping flying clubs would be to enable them to buy new aircraft, and that this in turn might have the effect of creating a market for light aircraft in this country, where at present it does not exist?

Mr. Rippon: I do not know that I am prepared to agree that the clubs are in a bad way or that they wish to say so themselves. We are well aware of the importance of giving every encouragement to private flying.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that there will be no change in the petrol rebate?

Mr. Rippon: That is a matter which is now under consideration.

de Havilland's

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that delay in the consideration of a follow-on order to de Havilland's can well cause productive inefficiency, a sharp increase in costs, and the possibility of unnecessary redundancy due to their being unable to maintain a continuous flow of work; and if he will take steps to finalise letters of intent for additional military aircraft.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend, but has nothing to add at present to the answer I gave him on 2nd November. 1959.

Mr. Cordle: I should be grateful if the Minister would do what he can to expedite this matter in view of the urgency and the extreme anxiety of the employees of de Havilland's.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend and the First Lord of the Admiralty fully appreciate the urgency of this matter. I hope that a decision will be made in time to avoid any break in production.

Aircraft Industry

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Aviation when he will be in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to the organisation of the aircraft industry.

Mr. Sandys: I hope to be able to do so quite soon.

Lord Balniel: Is my right hon. Friend continuing talks with the aircraft manufacturers, or is the report in the Daily Mail—that these talks have been broken off—correct?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the best evidence that the Government's policy is going forward in regard to the concentration of the industry can be found, not in any denial of mine of something which appeared in one or other newspaper, but in the public announcement last week that two important firms agreed upon a merger.

London Airport (F.I.D.O.)

8. Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation what consideration he is giving to the installation of F.I.D.O. at London Airport.

Mr. Sandys: Considerable technical difficulties have arisen in the course of the development of an effective method of fog dispersal. But I hope that we shall soon be in a position to decide whether it will be commercially feasible to establish such a system at London Airport.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that experimentation has been going on in this matter for many years at Manston and elsewhere? I should like to know when it is likely to reach finality. Have discussions taken place with the two Corporations as to what is economic from their point of view and as to the amount of money they are prepared to pay in return for having such a fog dispersal system installed?

Mr. Sandys: That is rather a different question. Replying to the first question,


it has not been easy to contend with Nature in this way. I went to the experimental station in Norfolk only the other day, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that everything is being pressed forward as much as possible. There have been quite a number of snags. As for the cost, it will be a matter for the airlines concerned to decide whether they think it worth-while. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the best estimate I have is that the installation of a system of this kind on one runway would cost between £500,000 and £1 million, and that the cost of the fuel consumed would be about £250 for each landing.

Mr. Woodburn: How is the alternative progressing—the system of blind landing and guided landing, which would be an alternative to F.I.D.O.?

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman has struck the important point. In considering whether this will be economically feasible, we also have to bear in mind how many years it will be—and it will not be so many—before air liners will be fitted with blind-landing instruments which will make any fog dispersal unnecessary.

Executive Class Aircraft

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will encourage the building of the executive class of aircraft.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to see our industry get a larger share of the market for executive class aircraft, which we are well-suited to produce in this country. However, in recent years, our manufacturers have found it difficult to compete successfully with American firms, who have the great advantage of a large protected home market.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not possible to give some help to manufacturing firms who are prepared to go ahead with the building of this type of aircraft, in view of the fact that its usefulness to business circles and to industry has been so well demonstrated in a recent flight to Ghana?

Mr. Sandys: It turns on what estimate is made of the potential market. As for Government assistance, it seems to me that the cost of developing a small aircraft of this kind is not very great and should be within the resources of our principal firms.

Private Aircraft (Navigational Aids)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to ensure that aircraft flown by private pilots will be equipped with sufficient navigational aids to provide safety for themselves and other aircraft.

Mr. Rippon: Private aircraft must always carry the basic navigational instruments. In controlled air space they must, unless the weather allows visual flying, also carry radio so that they can comply with control instructions. In traffic zones they must carry this apparatus in all weathers.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member not aware that recently a Messenger aircraft appeared above London Airport, it seems with neither navigational nor cockpit lighting, and, in view of that, all activities were suspended at the airport for a considerable time? What is the Minister prepared to do to try to encourage a greater sense of flying discipline among the private clubs?

Mr. Rippon: The circumstances of the flight to which the hon. Member refers are being investigated, but I do not think it in any sense affects the answer which I have given.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what reply he has now sent to the British Air Line Pilots Association in regard to the resolution from the International Federation of Air Line Pilots dealing with air traffic control.

Mr. Sandys: I have informed them that this problem, in which I am taking close personal interest, has been referred to the new Air Traffic Control Board for its views.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent it is his policy to join with other national aviation authorities, apart from the six European countries of the Common Market, in establishing a single unified air traffic control system for both civil and military aircraft flying at high altitudes over western Europe; whether it is his policy to have military control of this organisation; and to what extent he has discussed the problem with the Governments of


western European countries, such as Spain and Sweden, which are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance.

Mr. Sandys: The proposals now being studied envisage the extension of any joint air traffic control system which may be created to other neighbouring countries which may wish to be included. As I stated last week, the problem of bringing military aircraft within the scope of the proposed joint control is being examined by the countries concerned and also by N.A.T.O. The members of the Stockholm Group are being kept informed.

Mr. de Freitas: The Minister used the expression "being examined by the countries concerned". Does he mean that Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland. for instance, are being consulted at this moment on this extremely difficult problem of control over civil and military flying?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer about Spain, but I am sure that the Spanish Government are well aware of the proposals.

Land, Chalgrove

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Aviation why he has agreed to sell or lease agricultural land at Chalgrove, Oxfordshire, to Martin Baker Limited, although a number of the original owners from whom the land was compulsorily acquired would like to buy it back; why, in consequence, he has agreed to construct a new public road at Chalgrove; and for how long he expects this road to be in use.

Mr. Rippon: The future of this airfield is still under consideration, so I cannot make any statement at this stage.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister remember that, in the Crichel Down debate of 1954, the Minister of Agriculture promised that no land compulsorily acquired for one purpose would be sold for another purpose, and that in this case that is exactly what is happening? If the Government go ahead with the plan to sell the land to Martin Baker Ltd., they will be breaching the undertaking which they gave in the Crichel Down debate.

Mr. Rippon: Whatever happens, regard will be paid to the Crichel Down decision. The Crichel Down policy can be roughly summarised as an undertaking to offer to sell back to the previous owners agricultural land compulsorily acquired or acquired under threat of compulsion by any Government Department, once that land is no longer required for the purpose for which it was purchased. There are two exceptions—provided that the policy does not apply to land which has so changed its character that it has ceased to be agricultural—for example, where a factory has been erected, or where an airfield has been developed; and further, provided that the land is not required by another Government Department for some essential public purpose. All these factors are most seriously taken into account.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister not aware that the land has not changed its character and that several of the farmers would like to buy it back, but there is grave suspicion that the Government propose to sell it over their heads even though they want it back?

Mr. Rippon: I can only say that all these matters are under consideration. Very full consultations have taken place and are still taking place with all the interests concerned.

Air Services and Airline Operators (Licensing)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Aviation on what date he now proposes to introduce legislation to improve the arrangements for licensing air services and airline operators, and to ensure the maintenance of high standards of safety.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation on what date he proposes to introduce legislation to improve the arrangements for licensing air services and airline operators and to ensure the maintenance of high standards of safety.

Mr. Sandys: A Bill to deal with these matters will be introduced shortly.

Mr. Hunter: In view of the great importance of strengthening the air safety regulations following upon the Southall disaster, will the Minister issue a White Paper with the Bill explaining his proposals?

Mr. Sandys: I do not really think that that will be necessary.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor said, at the time of the Southall disaster last June, that this matter would be very urgently considered, yet we still do not know the date on which legislation is to be introduced? Could the Government not get a better move on in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: No time is being wasted.

Vertical Take-off Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Aviation what vertical take-off aircraft are being developed for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Sandys: The Bristol 192 should go into service next year. The Fairey Rotodyne is being developed as a cargo carrier for Service and for civil use. In addition to the Short S.C.1 research aircraft, work is proceeding on the Hawker P.1127, which shows great promise of meeting an R.A.F. need.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the Minister say, following on what the Minister of Defence recently said on his return from Germany, whether any of these vertical take-off aircraft for the R.A.F. will be built in Germany or whether any of the Royal Air Force vertical take-off aircraft will be supplied to Germany?

Mr. Sandys: It is too soon for me to make any statement on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Health Centres

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how many health centres have been opened under Section 21 of the National Health Service Act; and what is the total number of general practitioners working in these health centres.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): So far, ten new health centres have been provided under this section; 92 general practitioners are working in these centres.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the Minister tell us how many of these health centres are

being used merely as branch surgeries, apart from a practitioner's practice actually conducted outside the centre, and, further, will she consider making a survey of how these centres have worked during the operation of the National Health Service Act?

Miss Pitt: I do not know how many of the general practitioners use the centres as their sole or main base, but many, in fact, do not; they still continue to use their own surgeries.

Dr. Summerskill: Since there have been only ten centres provided in ten years, could the hon. Lady say whether the attitude of the British Medical Association towards the provision of health centres has made local authorities reluctant to provide them and the doctors to rent rooms in them?

Miss Pitt: I know of no representations made by the B.M.A. Health centres, of course, are still on an experimental basis, and, so far as I am aware, and from my own personal experience. it lies with the general practitioners in an area to say whether they want a health centre and are willing to operate it.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Lady realise that it has been suggested by the British Medical Association to medical practitioners that it is not desirable to support health centres?

Miss Pitt: I am surprised to hear that. I will inform myself on the point. There are, in fact, ten health centres, four more are being provided, and four further centres have been approved, so we are progressing in the provision of health centres.

Group Practices (Loans)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what is the total number, and the total amount, of interest-free loans granted to group practices of doctors by the Group Practice Loans Committee for each year since its inception.

Miss Pitt: The total number of loans so far approved for England and Wales is 180, involving £900,940. With permission, I will circulate the figures for each year in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Pavitt: Having regard to the figures given in answer to my Question


No. 20, that, for 21,000 general practitioners only fourteen health centres have been built, and, in view of the success of the group practice loan scheme, will the Minister consider extending the amount of money available for this purpose in the coming year and consider. also, not taking it out of the central pool?

Miss Pitt: Any extension of the arrangements would have to be considered in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about that matter.

Following are the figures:


ENGLAND AND WALES


—
Number of loans approved
Value of loans approved






£


1954–5
…
…
39
173,170


1955–6
…
…
35
143,370


1956–7
…
…
720
92,630


1957–8
…
…
21
113,720


1958–9
…
…
29
168,770


In 1959–60 the number of loans approved to date is 26 to the value of £209,280.

Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (Report)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made by the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration; and if he is yet able to state when its report may be expected.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am informed that the Royal Commission has now reached an advanced stage in drafting its report and hopes to present it in February. 1960.

Mr. Pavitt: Does that mean that there will be no question of an interim award prior to the publication of the report in February, 1960? Will the Minister, with his colleagues, give consideration to representations in order that the Government shall deal expeditiously with the report once it is received by the House?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No request for a further interim increase has been received. The hon. Gentleman will be

aware that there have already been two since the appointment of the Royal Commission. We shall, of course, hope to make the maximum speed compatible with full and thorough consultation in regard to these important matters.

Drugs (Control)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what steps he will now take to prohibit the sale to the public without a medical prescription of of habit-forming proprietary drug containing phenmetrazine hydrochloride, of which he has been sent details by the Medical Panel of the Advertising Inquiry Committee; and whether his attention has been directed to the comments about this drug by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a recent court case; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will make a statement on the official procedure for restricting the sale of potentially dangerous and habit-forming drugs; and if he will take steps to ensure that, when drugs of this kind come on the market, and their use is still experimental, they will be available on prescription only;
(2) if he has now considered the interim report of the Brain Committee: if he will publish it as a White Paper: and if he will make a statement;
(3) if the drugs considered by the Brain Committee include the tablets to which his attention was drawn in a letter dated 29th October, 1959, from the hon. Member for Barking; and if he is aware that these tablets, whose manufacturers themselves advise careful supervision of dose and amounts prescribed, since their side-effects can include allergic reactions, fever, fainting spells and bronchial spasms, can still be bought without a prescription at many chemists' shops.

Mr. Walker-Smith: One of the recommendations in the Interim Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction, which will be published shortly, is that, in general, any drug or pharmaceutical preparation which has an action on the central nervous system and is liable to produce physical or psychological deterioration should be confined to supply on prescription. The Committee further recommends that an independent expert body should advise


which substances should be so controlled. As an interim and urgent measure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is asking the Poisons Board to advise him which substances should be limited to supply on prescription under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While welcoming that Answer, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that immediate action will be taken to make it illegal to supply the drug, and others like it, without prescription. This matter has given rise to very grave anxiety in the minds of the public and of the medical profession. It was brought to the attention of the Minister many months ago by the body referred to in the Question and by the medical profession. There are strong feelings that this matter has hung fire for far too long. This is a drug the sale of which is illegal in most other countries and about which the firm distributing it in this country has gone on record as saying that it approves entirely of the advice that it should be put on Schedule 4 and should not be available except on prescription.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that we have followed the right course in referring this matter to the Brain Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the Committee does not condemn this drug sub nomine. It is true that this drug and others come within the scope of the recommendation, but what we now have to do is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to do—to refer this to the Poisons Board, which operates under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, particularly, in this context, under Sections 17 and 23

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by that answer—which, I agree, is satisfactory so far as it goes, although it has been rather long delayed—that the drug referred to in Question No. 59 will be immediately unobtainable except on prescription? I refer to the drug mentioned in the alarming little leaflet which I sent him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No; it means that in conformity with the recommendation of the Brain Committee the matter must

now be considered by an independent expert body, which we think in this context should be the Poisons Board, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Summerskill: While this is a little move forward, will the Minister tell the House what he proposes to do in respect of the drug houses who hold Press conferences to announce the efficacy of a drug which the medical profession knows full well has not had satisfactory clinical trials? These are drugs which can be obtained only on prescription.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady's supplementary question raises a wider issue. We are here dealing with drugs which, according to the Brain Committee, are liable to produce physical or psychological deterioration. What I am asked to do is to see that they can be provided only on prescription. What doctors should do is a matter for their own clinical conscience and judgment; it is not for me to direct them.

Sir H. Linstead: Does not the variety of the Questions put to my right hon. and learned Friend indicate how important it is to deal with this subject comprehensively and not isolated, drug by isolated drug?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. As I have already indicated, this is an interim and urgent measure. The Ministers concerned are also engaged in a comprehensive review of the whole of the legislation relating to the control of medical substances and are considering what changes should be made.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the Minister's answer to my previous supplementary question, can he say roughly how long it will be before the drug referred to in Question No. 59 is withdrawn from sale without a prescription? Is he aware that, in addition to the effects described in the Question, the manufacturers themselves say that withdrawal reactions have in some cases taken the form of epileptiform seizures—though fortunately, so far, suicide attempts have been unsuccessful?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot give a precise answer to the hon. Member's


supplementary question, because it depends upon the Poisons Board, which, as I have said, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that even now most chemists will only supply these drugs on prescription as a matter of guidance, and not of necessity. I am sure that these exchanges in the House today will reinforce that good tendency among chemists.

Remedial Gymnasts

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to increase the salaries of certificated medical gymnasts employed in rehabilitation centres and other branches of the National Health Service.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have approved a Whitley Council agreement by which the salaries of remedial gymnasts are increased with effect from 1st October, 1959, and the relevant circular was sent to employing authorities on 27th November.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that, even with the increases, the salaries vary only from £600 to £830 a year? In view of the fact that these are all qualified P.T. instructors who subsequently have to go through nine months' instruction, with a refresher course each year, and in view of the dedicated service they are giving by rehabilitation, does the Minister think these increases are adequate?

Mr. Walker-Smith: These are the increases which arose from the Whitley Agreement which resulted from a proposal for revaluation in the context of the circumstances which the hon. Member has described. Increases varied from £15 to £150, or, in percentages, from 3 per cent. to 22 per cent. The increases are, therefore, substantial.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not a fact that the chartered society is appealing against this decision?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not know that, but there is, of course, provision for arbitration in respect of any dissatisfied body. These are substantial increases, as I have indicated.

Food Poisoning

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that food

poisoning is responsible for about 30 deaths each year; and whether he will make a statement on the action he is taking to give better protection to the public.

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. The protection of the public against food poisoning depends on the maintenance of proper standards of hygiene in the handling of food. The Ministry assists local authorities and the food trade to secure higher standards in a variety of ways. The most important of these are the making of statutory regulations, the production of publicity material and the issuing of codes of practice.

Dr. Stross: Is the hon. Lady aware that proper standards of hygiene in the handling of food will not give us protection so long as we import without treatment liquidate preparations which are often infected by salmonella disease? Cannot we have from the hon. Lady and her right hon. and learned Friend an assurance that these preparations, particularly from abroad, where the infection is of a type to which we are not accustomed in this country, should be pasteurised compulsorily?

Miss Pitt: We take what steps we can to protect the public. It is almost impossible to legislate for everything, but I will bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the point made by the hon. Member.

Hearing Aids

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to make available, under the National Health Service, transistor hearing aids.

Miss Pitt: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 2nd November.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of batteries and components parts for National Health Service bone conduction hearing aids at clinics in the Manchester and Stockport areas; and what steps he is taking to remedy this deficiency and prevent the hardship being experienced by the deaf.

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. The shortages, which were of batteries and receiver leads for this type of aid, arose primarily from production difficulties. My right hon. and learned Friend has already taken steps with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to increase supplies generally, and the November demands of these two centres for these items have been met in full.

Mr. Griffiths: While I am sure that the hon. Lady's reply will give considerable satisfaction in Manchester, may I ask whether she is aware that we have had the disappointing experience of deaf people, when recently renewing a coil, being supplied with a black one instead of the normal flesh-coloured one, which picks them out as disabled persons, which is a most unfortunate state of affairs? In addition, they were told for quite a period that they would have to buy their own batteries. I am sure we are all relieved to know that that will not happen again.

Miss Pitt: The shortage of batteries was due to a large number being substandard. This has been put right and we are hoping also to obtain supplies from another supplier. In particular, I am told that the position at Manchester for all items is now satisfactory and that Stockport now has sufficient leads for bone conduction aids. It has asked for some batteries this month and a consignment is about to be sent.

Cranbrook Report (Obstetric List)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to announce his decisions on the recommendations of the Cranbrook Report; and, in particular, whether he favours the principle of an obstetric list.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Memoranda commending many of the recommendations in the Report were sent to hospital and local health authorities, executive councils and general practitioners on 31st July. I am not yet ready to pronounce upon the recommendations relating to the obstetric list as these are under consideration in consultation with the interested bodies.

Mr. Robinson: This is about the most important recommendation of all, and it is more than twelve months since the

right hon. and learned Gentleman received the Report. When he is making up his mind, will he bear in mind that there is widespread support for this recommendation and a good deal of support within the medical profession?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate the importance of the question. I do not know whether it is the most important—it is certainly a very important one—but certainly it is the most difficult, because there are strongly-held differences of opinion in this matter. For that reason, we have to have full consultation and close consideration before a decision can be made.

Public Health Inspectors

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health how many vacancies for public health inspectors there were in the Metropolitan boroughs at the latest date for which figures are available; what proportion of total establishments these vacancies represent; and what steps he will take to assist councils to recruit up to establishment.

Miss Pitt: I regret that information about vacancies is not available without special inquiry. While my right hon. and learned Friend cannot assist in filling individual posts, he is confident that the continuing improvement in national recruitment following the establishment of the new Education Board for public health inspectors and other measures will help to relieve local shortages.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that not only are salaries for these officers on the low side but the existing salary structure works to the disadvantage of London, and that London is training many recruits and then losing them to the Provinces? Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. and learned Friend to look into this aspect of the problem?

Miss Pitt: I know that the shortage is most acute in the industrial areas, but salaries, as the hon. Member is aware, are a matter for the Whitley Council.

Drug H.3

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health what advice his Department is giving to the medical profession with regard to the drug H.3 discovered by


Professor Anna Aslan of Roumania; and whether it is intended to make supplies of the drug available in this country.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No general advice has been given about this particular substance, and I am not aware of any plans for making it generally available in this country, but its constituents are in common medical use.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that the announcement of this drug has given rise to a good deal of speculation and expectation among various sections of the community? Is it not desirable that there should be an authoritative pronouncement about it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member may have seen the leading article in the British Medical Journal, which is an authoritative contribution in this context. I am advised that there is at present no satisfactory evidence of the value of this drug as a medicament against the infirmities of old age. If it becomes generally available for use in this country, it will be classified for therapeutic purposes by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead.

Dr. Summerskill: Is this not an illustration of what I asked the Minister on the earlier Question? Is it not wiser for the Minister or his Department to make a statement when a Press conference has given publicity to the efficacy of a drug such as this, which reduces the symptoms of senility, and, in consequence, means a rush of old people to doctors asking them for it or something similar to it? Is the Minister aware that although novocain and procain have been given and both are similar in effect, nevertheless it is important for an authoritative statement to he made in respect of this drug, and not only in the British Medical Journal?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Our procedure is that these drugs are tested for their therapeutic quality by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead when they are submitted to it. That would be the procedure to be followed in this case. No Minister could ever hope to keep pace with everything that appears in the Press.

Dental Health Education

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health the amounts being spent annually by his Department on the dental health education of the public, with a view to preventing unnecessary dental disease; and how this sum compares with the amount spent annually by his Department on the treatment of dental disease under the general dental services.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The expenditure of the Ministry of Health in supporting the work of local health authorities, who are the main agencies for dental health education under the National Health Service, cannot be separately identified except for one single item—that incurred on publicity material, which is of the order of £2,500–£3,000 a year. The expenditure of local health authorities, which is relevant expenditure taken into consideration in fixing the general grant totals, similarly cannot be separately estimated. The annual cost to the Exchequer of the general dental service in England and Wales is about £40 million.

Mr. Janner: In view of the large amount of money which has to be spent in curing dental caries, does not the Minister think that the amount being spent on educating the public to preserve their teeth is absurdly low? How much has he given to the two Committees which have been set up for this specific purpose? Is the answer "Nothing"? If so, why?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Concerning the sum, as I explained in my Answer, that relates to only one item. The cost of salaries, public relations and so on are not separately identifiable, for reasons which I have explained. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the answer is still the same as on the other two occasions when he asked the Question: that is to say, the Standing Committee is not of itself a spending body. It is an advisory and co-ordinating body for the other agencies which spend the money.

Mr. Janner: How on earth does the Minister expect the Standing Committees to carry on their work if he does not provide any money for that purpose?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Because the function of the Standing Committee is to


secure public awareness in dental matters and advise on the form which publicity should take and ensure that the other agencies carry out the work together. It is, therefore, a co-ordinating and advisory body for all those other agencies, as I have pointed out on the other two occasions.

Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health if he will give favourable consideration to the provision of a vehicle to a disabled person with a double amputation below the knee.

Miss Pitt: Eligibility for power-propelled invalid tricycles depends on the degree of loss of use of the legs and, in those less severely disabled, on employment needs also, and a number of persons with double amputations below the knee are eligible on these grounds.

Deaf and Dumb Persons (Television Programmes)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Health if he will consult the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority with a view to the provision of facilities whereby deaf and dumb persons could understand some of the normal transmissions, in view of the need to provide as widely as possible for this handicapped section of the population.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that the National Institute for the Deaf and the National Deaf Children's Society are in close touch with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority on this matter and that with their full cooperation facilities are already being provided to help the deaf in following particular programmes.

Mr. Gourlay: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that this tragically handicapped section of the population is almost as large numerically as those people who receive and understand the special Welsh programmes on television? Does he not consider that one evening news bulletin, for instance, might be given in sign language, also an occasional topical talk in sign language,

which would be very valuable to those members of the community? While the organisations concerned have had consultations, does he not consider that, as Minister responsible, he also should make representations?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, we are in close touch with these organisations, and they understand very well the special needs of the deaf and put them before the broadcasting authorities. The hon. Gentleman's particular suggestions, I am sure, will have regard paid to them, and if he has any other suggestions I shall be very glad to pass them on.

Dental Students

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health how many additional places for dental students have been provided since the publication of the McNair Report.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that in Great Britain there were 652 dental students in the first year of their professional course in 1958–59 compared with 632 in 1957–58 and 582 in 1956–57.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister will agree that this is very poor progress indeed? May we take it from his earlier supplementary answer today that, when the developments recently announced are complete, the McNair recommendations will then have been, however belatedly, fully implemented?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, these are building projects which necessarily take a little time, as all building projects do. We are seeking, as I have explained, to implement the recommendation in regard to the 800 dentists. I shall have to satisfy myself that they will be achieved by this particular list of projects which I have already announced.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Maternity Accommodation, East Grinstead

Mrs. Emmet: asked the Minister of Health, now that the Cranbrook Committee has reported, what steps he is taking to provide urgently needed maternity accommodation for the growing town of East Grinstead.

Miss Pitt: The regional hospital board is in process of reviewing the existing hospital maternity provision in the region in the light of the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee, as my right hon. and learned Friend has asked all regional boards to do, and action here must depend on the result of its review.

Mrs. Emmett: Does my hon. Friend realise that East Grinstead is growing at the rate of 18 per cent. in four years, and is continuing to grow very fast? There are no private nursing homes in the town and there is no maternity accommodation in the Victoria Hospital. Is this matter not becoming very urgent?

Miss Pitt: I am informed that East Grinstead patients needing hospital confinement usually go to Cuckfield Hospital, twelve miles away, where there is a 37 bed maternity unit. This unit is under considerable pressure, partly due to its use by Crawley patients, but this situation will be relieved when the 40 bed maternity unit now under construction at Crawley is in operation. Crawley is nine miles from East Grinstead and may attract patients from the latter. I hope that that will help.

Dr. Summerskill: Are we to understand that, wherever new maternity accommodation is provided, the Ministry is observing the percentages laid down by the Cranbrooke Committee for maternity units in hospitals?

Miss Pitt: That is the aim. We have not yet reached it.

Ambulances

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to hospital staff and patients by delays in the arrival of ambulances from the centralised county service; and if he will allocate one or two house ambulances to each hospital to supplement the existing service and so help to reduce those delays.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My information is that such delays are very infrequent. The responsibility for providing an adequate ambulance service lies with the local health authority, which is best able to decide how vehicles should be deployed in consultation with the hospitals concerned.

Mr. Holland: While I appreciate that hospitals are not likely to complain to the Ministry every time an ambulance is delayed, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider my suggestion again if I furnish him with evidence in writing that these delays do occur and cause inconvenience?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend must not underestimate the capacity of people to complain to the Minister if they think that anything is wrong. In fact, four instances of delay in Middlesex have been brought to the attention of myself and my predecessors in the last four years, but, as these are four cases out of 750,000 patients carried per annum, it is not a large number. Of course, I will consider any specific matters which my hon. Friend cares to bring to my notice.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the kind of difficulty referred to in the Question is fairly widespread throughout the country and arises from the control of ambulance services by local authorities? Will he give consideration to the possibility of transferring these services at a future date to hospital authorities who make the greater part of the use of these services?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this has been the pattern of the service since its inception. It may not have worked perfectly—very few things do in this imperfect world—but, on balance, I would have thought that it had worked well. I will certainly give further consideration to the points raised by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend.

Sheffield Dental Hospital

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health who provided the funds for the new Sheffield dental hospital; what additional number of places for dental students were made available by this hospital; and how many of those places have been occupied.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The cost was met mainly from Exchequer funds, with a contribution from the Sheffield Voluntary Hospitals Million Pound Appeal Fund. Some 25 additional places annually for dental students were made available by this hospital, and all of these in recent years have been occupied.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this is a very small contribution towards the 800 who are considered to be essential to meet existing requirements? Will he speed up the other proposals for the purpose of training dental students to become dentists?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. I made a statement in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) on 16th November, in which I referred to several new dental projects at various stages of planning, including University College and King's College Hospitals, the London Hospital and at Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and Cardiff.

Mr. Robinson: How many places in toto will these projects provide when completed?

Mr. Walker-Smith: These are the projects which are designed to enable us to implement the McNair recommendation, which is 800 a year practising, which means a total output of 900.

Central Middlesex Hospital (Occupational Health Unit)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement with regard to the future of the Occupational Health Unit at the Central Middlesex Hospital.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This matter is under consideration by the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, with whom I am in close touch, and I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to regard this effort favourably? Does he recall that this was a pioneering effort, certainly financed by the Nuffield Trust, but given the blessing of one of his predecessors? So I am sure it would be in the interests of the whole country if he would see that this unit does remain alive.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I quite agree with the force of the right hon. Lady's point. The fact is that I am in a statutory difficulty here. The work of this unit consists in broadly equal parts of three components, hospital service work, research work, and work for the development of

group industrial health services in local factories. I have power to finance the first two under the National Health Service Act, but not the third. That is my difficulty, which I am trying to overcome.

Welfare of Children

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health what advice he is giving to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees on the recommendations of the Committee on the Welfare of Children in Hospitals

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum I have sent to hospital authorities on this subject.

Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that some of these recommendations may cost quite a lot of money, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering hospital improvements or new hospitals which require his approval, will he ensure that the considerations contained in the recommendations are included in the schemes?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. What I have asked the hospital authorities to do is to give attention to the recommendation that where children are at present scattered through adult wards they should be concentrated, where possible, in children's units or that they should be grouped together, at any rate, with adolescents rather than with adults. I have also asked them to pay attention to the recommendation in regard to visiting by parents.

Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham (Out-patient Department)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health whether the plans for a new out-patient department at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, have now been finally approved; and when it is proposed to commence the building.

Miss Pitt: Sketch plans have been approved and the regional board was authorised in October, 1959, to prepare working drawings and bills of quantities. I cannot yet say when building work will commence.

Mr. Yates: Is the hon. Lady not aware that this is the sort of Answer which has been continually given and that the


fullest consideration has been given locally to this matter? It really is a scandal; it has been a scandal for the last twenty years. Can the Minister not give any hope that something will be done in the near future?

Miss Pitt: Something is being done. This is a major scheme, which was originally announced in 1956, not twenty years ago. Its cost is about £250,000. We have already accepted sketch plans, and, as I advised the hon. Gentleman, the regional board was authorised as recently as two months ago to go ahead with preparing working drawings.

Del La Pole Mental Hospital

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the public concern that money due to some of the patients at the Del La Pole Mental Hospital cannot he accounted for, if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The police and the auditors are investigating an apparent deficiency of £52 in the accounts for patients' money. I am not in a position to comment until these investigations have been completed.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health (1) how many men patients at the Del La Pole Mental Hospital worked in or around the hospital during the week ended 28th November; what was the average number of hours worked during that week per male patient; and what was the average payment per patient in this respect;
(2) how many of the male patients at the Del La Pole Mental Hospital, engaged during the week ended 28th November on work in or around the hospital or on the farm, were paid wholly in cigarettes or tobacco; and in how many cases it was used as part payment in lieu of money.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am informed that 234 male patients worked in or around the hospital during the week ended 28th November, and that the average number of hours worked was 22. The average cash payment was 2s. 9d., but in addition 147 patients were paid wholly and 30 partly in goods from the hospital shop.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman stating that patients are still being paid in cigarettes and

tobacco? Is he saying they are still being paid in kind, in view of the undertaking which was given several months ago to stop this practice?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, in my circular of 4th May last, I told hospital authorities that I considered the payment of patients in kind rather than cash to be undesirable save only where patients are incapable of appreciating the value of money or of deciding how to spend it. I intend to ask this hospital management committee whether more patients cannot properly be paid in cash.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Minister for the answer he has just given, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that many of us who have taken a very great interest in mental hospitals look upon this hospital as one of the best mental hospitals in the country, run by a medical superintendent who is both progressive and humane? If this is the best that can be done, heaven help some of the patients in less progressive hospitals.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's testimony to this hospital. It is fully confirmed in a recent report by the Board of Control Commissioners who testified to the effectiveness of the treatment of the patients and praised the efforts made at this hospital to employ them usefully. On the general point of payment in kind, the hon. Gentleman knows my view. I will follow it up.

New Hospitals

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how many new hospitals are now being built; and how many plans for building new hospitals will be put into operation in 1960.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) on 4th November.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman nothing to add to that, in view of the fact that there has been a continuing demand for more hospitals, and that the reply given, I understand. was not entirely satisfactory?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I thought the list I gave was very satisfactory; when it


showed that we have six hospitals partly complete and in use, and that we have nine others where work is in progress, and four planned to start during the next financial year. So we are making very good progress with this problem.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the total cost will be more or less than that recommended in the Guillebaud Report?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is for the moment less than that recommended in the Guillebaud Report but vastly greater than that achieved by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady opposite.

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (PROPOSED MUSEUM, PORT SAID)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. LIPTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiry he has made from the Egyptian Government about the proposal that a house in Port Said where a British officer was killed is to become a museum: and what reply he has received.

Mr. BIGGS-DAVISON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries have been made by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Cairo into the proposal by the Egyptian Government that the house where Lieutenant Anthony Moorhouse died during the British occupation of Port Said in 1956 is to be turned into a museum; and with what result.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Nos. 83 and 84.
The Head of our Mission in Cairo was instructed to take up this matter with the authorities of the United Arab Republic as soon as reports of it reached London. He has been told that the proposal to make the house in question a museum was not made on the initiative of the United Arab Republic Government. We have left the United Arab Republic authorities in no doubt about our views on the project itself and its effect on any improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the proposal in question is regarded with the utmost revulsion and loathing by everyone in this country, quite irrespective of party? If, as he states, he has already made that quite clear to the Government of the United Arab Republic, will he also, perhaps, suggest that a word from the Government of that country dissociating itself from this proposal would help in the resumption of diplomatic relations?

Mr. Lloyd: I wish there to be no doubt about the feelings of my colleagues and myself, and, I think, of the whole House, about this project. This young man died, on the evidence of his captors, accidentally. He was tied to a bed and left for such a time that he died either of asphyxiation or starvation. Such an occurrence surely cannot be a subject for celebration, however strong nationalist feelings may be. I should have thought that that would be the reaction of ordinary people in any and every country. I repeat, however, that according to my information the project was not initiated by the Government of the United Arab Republic.

Mr. Gaitskell: Whilst agreeing entirely with what the Foreign Secretary has said and with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and regarding this whole notion as not merely repulsive but, as an indication of Egyptian pride, incomprehensible, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary would not agree that it is best to treat this, as Lieutenant Moorhouse's father suggested, with dignity and restraint?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that we all must have been very much moved by the terms of the telegram sent by the parents of Lieutenant Moorhouse.

PIGS

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. A. HURD: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on Government policy for the British pig industry and particularly bacon production, following his consultations with the various interests concerned.

Colonel R. H. GLYN: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the British pig industry.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): With permission, Sir, I will now answer Questions Nos. 96 and 97 together.
The recent difficulties have been caused by the decline in pig numbers which has affected all sections of the industry. Bacon curers are still getting a reasonable share of the pigs available, but they have been unable to maintain their output of bacon.
At the same time, because of the greater strength of the other markets for pigs the return to bacon pig producers has been less than the standard price in recent weeks. The present guarantee system permits limited fluctuations in the returns to the producers for pigs used for different purposes so as to encourage the marketing of pigs to the best advantage. Over the fatstock year from 1st April so far the bacon pig producer has received, on average, more than the standard price.
I am quite satisfied that any attempt to prevent fluctuations by isolating the markets for bacon pigs and other pigs, for example, by fixing separate standard prices, would fail as it did before the war. At the same time, I appreciate the desire of specialist producers and curers for stability and, of course, it is my desire to do what is possible to safeguard the position of an efficient bacon industry.
At the last Annual Review the Government introduced separate stabilising arrangements for bacon pigs and other pigs. This should have facilitated the making of voluntary long-term contracts, but little has yet been done. If curers are prepared to take positive steps in this direction, I am willing to consider at the next Annual Review what further the Government can do to facilitate such contracts.
All sections of the trade have emphasised to me the difficulties arising from the present shortage of pigs. The latest returns indicate that the decline in the pig breeding herd has been arrested, and I see no reason why an increase should not now take place although it must be some months before this could be reflected in increased marketings.
The Government have also had under consideration the question of imports. We have been pressed by the Canadian Government to free the import of pig-meat. As an earnest of our intentions, and to help the domestic trade in its current difficulties, we propose to authorise immediately imports of up to 25,000 tons of North American frozen pork. This will, in practice, come chiefly from Canada, a traditional supplier of pigmeat to the United Kingdom.
The whole question of pigmeat imports will have to be further reviewed later next year. In the meantime, account will have to be taken in our present trade negotiations with Poland of this increase in our pigmeat supplies.

Sir A. Hurd: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend is now trying to do to restore confidence in the British bacon industry, may I ask whether it is the Government's view that we have allowed pig numbers to run down too fast—a drop of 12 per cent. in the past year—and whether my right hon. Friend will make it quite clear, in any further discussions on trade liberalisation with the Danes and the Poles, and anybody else sending bacon here, that we are determined to hold a full share of the whole market for a progressive bacon industry here? Furthermore, would my right hon. Friend say how the Canadian supplies will fit into this general picture?

Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend has asked two questions. If I may deal with my hon. Friend's first point, about Poland, I think that hon. Members can really make their own deductions from what I have said. It would be impolite for me to go further, as we are discussing these matters with Polish representatives who are now in London.
On the second point, my hon. Friend must realise that this is a question for the Annual Price Review. I think that it would be wrong for me to comment very much more at this stage on what he has said.

Colonel Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some observers fear that the continuation of the present policy may lead to the eclipse of the British bacon industry whose share in the national bacon market has already fallen by 20 per cent. in the last twelve months?


Does my right hon. Friend feel that long-term contracts between pig producers and bacon factories can succeed in the present circumstances whereas they failed before the war?

Mr. Hare: I think that we must be very careful not to exaggerate the effects of recent conditions on the British bacon industry, because during the eleven months from January to November this year bacon production in Great Britain was only 5 per cent. less and, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, which includes Northern Ireland, was only 2·5 per cent. less than for the same period last year.
On the question whether long-term contracts may be more successful now than they were before the war, there is now a guaranteed price for pigs and a stabilising arrangement setting a floor of 3s. below the standard price. If producers are prepared to accept a little less and curers to give a little more for stability, there might be strong arguments for long-term contracts.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that he is not to make a statement is a bitter disappointment to the pig industry, which expected some action from the Government? Does he not recognise that this sharp fall in pig production is entirely due to Government policy and that the men from Whitehall never did worse?
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the figures for the last eleven months, why does he not give the figure for the past two months, when prices have fallen by 8s. 6d. a score and the housewife has had no compensating advantage in retail prices? Why not face this difficulty and let us have action before the Price Review? Why not pay some heed to the warning given to the right hon. Gentleman by everyone in the pig industry?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member knows far more than he pretends. To say, when one is engaged in agriculture production, that one should merely pay attention to the last two months, without taking a period of time in a market as fluctuating as the pig market, is folly and not worthy of the hon. Member.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman knows that if we chopped and changed between Price Reviews we would cause great instability in the industry and would be doing no service to it.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that it has been suggested in speeches in the country that he has been prevented from giving adequate support to the bacon pig industry through a clause that was inserted secretly in the Anglo-Danish Agreement at the time of the negotiations? Could my right hon. Friend either confirm or deny that report?

Mr. Hare: Most certainly I deny it; there is absolutely no truth in it. We retain our complete independence of action as far as our home producers are concerned, as long as we do not defeat the object of the Agreement.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has made a rather interesting statement, namely, that he has arrested the decline in pig breeding, but is he aware that the latest returns for last month show a total drop in the pig population of over 700,000 compared with the previous year, and in the number of sows for breeding there has been a drop of 58,000, compared with last year? How does he explain that?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, also, is well aware that since last June the figures for pig breeding here have remained stationary; in fact, the decline started in June last year. I have said before in the House that I believe there will be an increase in breeding here at any moment. It has remained stationary now since last June.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the discussions he is to have with the industry that the fact that there has only been a small fall in the total number of pigs going to bacon factories does not mean that anything like the same amount of bacon is being cured? Would he also bear in mind that if he is to allow further imports on to the pork market it may give the home producer no outlet whatsoever? While we are all ready to give preference to the Commonwealth, we are not so keen to give it to the Danes.

Mr. Hare: My hon. and gallant Friend must be aware that the proposed


imports of Canadian frozen pork should help the bacon side of the industry, because they will make available for the pork market the extra imports that are coming from Canada, which should relieve the pressure on the pork market and, therefore, should make more pigs available for bacon curing.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the intensely disappointing statement by the Minister, and the fact that he is obviously unaware of the serious position of bacon pig producers in Kent, will he be prepared to meet a deputation so that he will be aware of its seriousness, which will indicate that the February Price Review will be much too late for some producers?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have received a series of delegations, all of whom have given me mostly conflicting advice on this difficult subject.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many pig producers and bacon curers will regard his statement with apprehension? Will my right hon. Friend say particularly how the addition of 25,000 tons of pork, from whatever source, to the existing market can possibly have the effect of hardening prices and helping the industry, however the pigmeat is to be used?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend may not have caught my words. It is frozen pork which is coming in. It will help in two ways: for the bacon side directly, in so far as this frozen pork is suitable for curing, and indirectly in so far as the frozen pork will be absorbed in the pork manufacturing markets, thereby releasing some home-produced pigs for curing.

Mr. Lawson: Would the Minister not forget the consumer in all this? Would he not consider injecting a little more competition into the business to ensure that we get cheaper pigmeat and bacon?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman has put a very fair question. In all this one has to try to keep a fair balance between various sections of the industry and the consumer. I am anxious not to do anything for the short term which might do damage to the pig industry and to the consumer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us whether he is authorised to speak for the pigs of Scotland?

Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been good enough to entrust that great responsibility to me on this occasion.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be a terrible humiliation if the Government came a cropper on the subject of pigs?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of coming a cropper on this subject.

Mr. Chetwynd: It is becoming a bore.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, READING

Mr. Speaker: On Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) desired my leave to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 on the basis of a Motion, the terms of which appear at col. 1397 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that day.
The interception by the police, and at their instigation, of a telephone conversation without the express warrant of the Secretary of State, the disclosure to a domestic tribunal of material obtained by interception, the consent given by the Home Secretary to this disclosure, and his failure to take steps to prevent a recurrence of this type of interception and disclosure in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1397.]
Exceptionally, I asked the indulgence of the House to be allowed to consider the matter and I would like to express my gratitude for that, because it must have caused inconvenience. I have had an opportunity of looking at, and have looked at, the precedents which narrow the Standing Order, and the conclusion I have reached is that I cannot accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request because I do not think that it is open to me to hold his Motion within the Standing Order.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While accepting your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker, and thanking you for the consideration that you gave to it, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the great public concern and alarm about this matter, the Government would provide


time for a debate upon it, because there are a great many questions which cannot be answered by way of Question and Answer?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir, I anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. or hon. Friends might make this request in the event of your Ruling going as you have now informed us, Mr. Speaker, and I can say that I am ready to have consultations through the usual channels. There is the comparative difficulty of the short time left to us before Christmas, but I weigh against that the importance of the subject. I will leave it at that, but we will have conversations, bearing in mind the difficulties of finding a suitable time and also the importance of the subject.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Sir. So that we may be guided on future occasions, would you tell us under which heading my right hon. Friend's application fell short? Was it urgency, definiteness or importance?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will do so as briefly as I may. I do not wish to give long reasons. But it is rather difficult to state them shortly, because the Motion raised a number of matters and there are distinct objections relating to

each. Broadly, I came to the conclusion that the Motion could not be within the Standing Order on three grounds: the matter raised was too indefinite—the precedents are insistent on a single matter only being raised; the matter raised occurred in the ordinary administration of the law—precedent is insistent that such matter cannot be so raised. As a result of that factor, the matter is not urgent in the procedural sense within the context of the Standing Order.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Further to that point of order, Sir. May I ask, with great respect, whether it is a desirable precedent for a Question under Standing Order No. 9 to be held over for two or three days? In the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure it was suggested that the Speaker might take time to consider this and give his answer later that day. May I ask whether you have given thought to that and whether perhaps in future it might be desirable for your answer to be given on the day the question is raised, if possible?

Mr. Speaker: Having that point in mind, the House will have noticed that I prefaced my gratitude for the indulgence shown to me with the word "exceptionally". I regret the inconvenience that I may have caused.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE

CLASS IX. VOTE 6A

Office of the Minister for Science

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Science.

3.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): This afternoon we are considering in Committee one of the two or three most important subjects that the House will have before it during this Parliament. On this subject depends our ability to earn our living in a competitive world. Furthermore, our scientific and technological effort is very closely bound up with our ability to give aid to emergent countries. Thirdly, our whole culture will. I believe, be impoverished unless as a nation we pay more attention to the rôle of science and technology in a growing industrial economy.
Certainly, I, for one, greatly welcome, as I am sure the whole Committee does, the interest and correspondence which has been encouraged in this subject by the Rede Lecture of Sir Charles Snow recently. I believe that it is fair to say that there is today more public discussion of these highly important issues than ever before.
I shall begin with the question: what should be the attitude of the Government towards the promotion of scientific effort? In this context, it is interesting to see the different ways in which this question has been answered in different parts of the world. In Russia, scientific

policy is directed through the Academy, a body which superficially resembles our Royal Society. While we certainly should not underrate the scientific and technological achievements of the Russian Academy, I believe that the Russian system could not possibly be imported into Britain without making British science a political career in a manner which certainly would not be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of British scientists.
In the United States, the Constitution and the division of powers in that country enable Americans to control a great deal of scientific effort within the general structure of the executive Government, but without making it directly responsible to Congress except through the President.
The line of development in Britain has been different from the lines of development in both America and Russia. On the one hand, unlike the Russians, we believe in giving scientists and technologists the maximum degree possible of independence and freedom from political controversy, and, at the same time—this is where we differ from the American approach—we believe, also, in retaining the control of Parliament over finance, and the responsibility of Ministers for the general supervision of policy.
I think that at this stage it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I said a few technical words about the Supplementary Estimate itself. The Committee will have seen that the Vote for the office of Minister for Science, totalling £36,090, represents in very large measure no addition to Government expenditure for the current year, but is simply a switch from previous Votes to a new Vote. The new Vote comprises the cost which remains to the end of the financial year of the staff which previously formed the Atomic Energy Office—and was paid for under a separate Vote—together with the staff previously forming the Lord President's Office, which has hitherto been on the Vote of the Treasury.
The net increase of £4,080 for which we are asking—that is, the actual Supplementary Estimate—is accounted for by two things: first, by the need to make new provision for a Chief Information Officer and supporting staff; and,


secondly, by the inclusion and provision of about £2,400 for certain additional staff for the former Lord President's Office, which the Treasury has already approved, but for which there has not been any earlier opportunity to have the necessary provision formally approved by Parliament. That explains the reference on page 12, which hon. Members may have noticed, to the £2,000 which has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
Incidentally, if hon. Members are curious about Z.3, on page 13—miscellaneous receipts, £1,200—I have looked into it and can say that the largest amount of the £1,200 is made up of notional payments for the superannuation contributions of members of the Atomic Energy Authority Board, and the smallest amount—too small to be itemised separately—is represented by repayments for private telephone calls.
Having, I hope, explained the technical details of the Estimate to the Committee, I should now like to say a few words about the responsibilities of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal as Minister for Science. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Lord Privy Seal is responsible for a number of bodies which can most conveniently be divided into three groups. First, there is the Atomic Energy Authority. Here, we have a return to the position in Lord Salisbury's day, when the Lord President was responsible for this Authority. This is, in a sense, a reversion to an earlier practice.
Secondly, the Lord Privy Seal is responsible for the four great executive research councils—the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. Thirdly, my noble Friend is responsible for three highly important advisory bodies: first, the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy with its important offshoot, the Scientific Manpower Committee; secondly, the Overseas Research Council; and, thirdly, the Steering Group for Space Research.
It would not be appropriate for me to go through the work of all these bodies this afternoon, but there are two aspects of my noble Friend's responsibilities to which I specially want to direct the

attention of the Committee. First, though my noble Friend's Vote is a small one, and the Supplementary Estimate with which we are concerned today smaller still, none the less the bodies for which my noble Friend is generally responsible account, in total, for a considerable volume of Government expenditure, indeed probably greater than most hon. Members realise.
I will give some figures. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research spent a little under £800,000 in the last year before the war, it was spending £4½ million in 1950–51, the last complete financial year when hon. Members opposite were in office, and the Estimate for the current year is £13¼ million. The corresponding figures for the Medical Research Council are £219,000 in the year before the war, £l¾ million in 1950–51 and £3½ million for the current year. The figures for the Agricultural Research Council are £321,000 for the last year before the war, £2 million in 1950–51 and just under £6 million for the current year. The Atomic Energy Authority was spending £71 million in 1956–57, and the figure for the current year is £92 million, comprising £37 million of capital expenditure and £55 million of current expenditure.
I quote those figures to the Committee for this reason. I am the last person to say that we should be complacent about them in any way, but I do not believe that anyone faced with these figures can argue that the Government have altogether neglected expenditure on research. Nor can anybody claim that the expenditure on research has risen less fast than the national income as a whole.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Can the hon. Gentleman give the global sum of Government money—public money—now being spent on research and development for private industry?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: So that we may follow the debate a little more closely, will my hon. Friend say whether the Lord Privy Seal has any responsibility at all for aviation research?

Sir Edward Boyle: I am coming to aviation research a little later in my speech.
I cannot give the global figure for which the hon. Gentleman the Member


for Newton (Mr. Lee) asked, but the last figures I was quoting were for the current financial year, the estimate for 1959–60. I think that these are the latest figures which we can reasonably expect to get.
I should like to say a word on one other aspect of my noble Friend's responsibilities, the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. This is a body of the very highest importance to the nation as a whole. Incidentally, it has, of course, a very close relationship with the National Development and Research Council. This wholly independent body has always had an independent chairman, ever since it was set up in 1947. It has given advice on a wide range of topics, including a review of national expenditure on science, and has made recommendations from time to time on the supply of scientific manpower. Indeed, its offshoot, the Committee on Scientific Manpower, was the body responsible for the target for doubling the output of scientists and technologists by the end of the next decade, a target very frequently referred to in the House in education and scientific debates.
The present Chairman of the Advisory Council is Sir Alexander Todd, who has held this position for the last seven years. The Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Committee on Scientific Manpower is Sir Solly Zuckerman, who has only recently been appointed Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence. I think that that was a most fortunate appointment. While my noble Friend has no intention of directly interfering with the scientific responsibilities of his colleagues, it will obviously be most valuable to have this link between defence science and the work of the Advisory Council.
There is one other point which I should like to make about the Advisory Council before I leave it. My noble Friend has already asked the Council to advise him on the balance of our national scientific effort, and it is hoped by the Government that this highly important exercise will at any rate be of some assistance in the detection of gaps in our national scientific activities.
For the rest of my time, I should like to say a few words about the personal rôle that my noble Friend will play as Minister for Science. I think that the first

point to be clear about is this. My noble Friend will play a rôle which no other Minister in our history has played before. It is quite true that the list of organisations coming under him is the same as the list which formerly came under the Lord President. But this does not mean that there will be no change, because my noble Friend will be full time as Minister for Science in a way which the Lord President never was under the previous arrangement.
It seems to me that this is an absolutely right decision by the Government for a number of reasons. One obvious reason is this: within the four main research councils there are no fewer than 97 research stations and establishments. Secondly, this is a job which requires a very great deal of thought and discussion—for example, with scientists and technologists at universities and elsewhere.
I know that my noble Friend would wish me, on this point, to stress the importance of the universities, and I am very glad to do so, because I think that we should remind ourselves very often that the universities do not exist simply to confer degrees on undergraduates; they also exist to push back the frontiers of knowledge, both pure and applied, and the work of the faculties in all the time pushing backwards the frontiers of knowledge is of incalculable benefit to the country as a whole. My noble Friend attaches great importance to the question of links between the establishments of the research councils, on the one hand, and the universities and technical colleges, on the other, and it will be his aim to make these links and the relationship as fruitful as possible.
I should like to take up this point of where my right hon. Friend's responsibilities fit in with those of other Ministers. Here, I take up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) made just now. So far as defence research is concerned, the Government have made it plain that the bulk of defence research activities, especially in the field of aircraft, guided weapons, and electronics, will be transferred from the former Minister of Supply to the new Minister of Aviation. My noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal will obviously have very close contact with this work, because he is directly responsible for space research. I can assure


him that my noble Friend's contact will be as close as possible.
Then again, it will probably happen that my noble Friend will be able to use the establishments of the research councils to reinforce the work of a number of Ministries, and to give them general guidance and advice in matters of scientific policy. For instance, I am quite sure that nothing but good has flowed from the recommendation of the Lord President's Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, some years ago, that the Executive Departments with scientific interests should all appoint chief scientists. I do not see how Executive Departments with some concern for science can get on without chief scientists any more than we can get on at the Treasury without an Economic Adviser. It is obviously a wise and extremely helpful decision. Some of the establishments of the Research Councils do work of basic importance for particular Government Departments, an obvious and typical case being the work of the Road Research Laboratory.
I have been speaking so far in terms of home Departments, but so far as overseas Departments are concerned a new experiment was started last July by the establishment of an Overseas Research Council, under Dr. Atkin, the Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University. The object of this body is, as it were, to focus the scientific effort of the United Kingdom to the greatest possible advantage of underdeveloped overseas territories, and especially the newly independent countries of the Commonwealth. In this work, the Overseas Research Council will be able to work closely with the United States. This Council is an important enterprise which has been established with the full co-operation of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the Commonwealth Relations Office. Here is certainly a field where a centrally placed Minister for Science can give significant assistance.
I have left to the end of my speech what many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will regard as the greatest challenge of all to my noble Friend as Minister for Science. That is how to ensure that the most modern ideas and discoveries in science and

technology are effectively and rapidly applied in British industry today. The problem here, surely, is twofold: On the one hand, how best to mobilise the experience and expertise of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is a direct responsibility of my noble Friend. I am sure that the widest possible exchange of information on technical discoveries is something in itself of very great value. We certainly could not have made the progress in school building which we have made in the last ten years but for this very fruitful exchange of ideas by every possible means.
Secondly we have also to see how best to instil into the whole of British industry, whether the public sector or the private sector, the realisation that no firm can afford to stand still, either in its own interest or in that of the nation.
There is a further point, that the civil science side can learn much from the defence side, for instance in the use of development contracts. The D.S.I.R. is working actively on this idea at the moment. It is my impression—and I speak for a moment as a Birmingham Member of Parliament—that we all tend to underrate the benefits which have flowed to the civil economy as a result of the defence programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) referred to this often when he was Minister of Supply, and I am quite sure that there is a great deal of truth in that point.
We have the general question of how best to apply modern science and technology to industry. It will obviously be a topic of the greatest concern to my noble Friend and I do not believe that there is any short or easy answer to it. It is a matter of making detailed progress along the whole of a very wide front.
In conclusion, science and technology today are not just two subjects among many. Science and technology have always played a greater rôle in human affairs than most historians have recognised. To take one obvious example, one cannot understand mediaeval English history without some technical knowledge of how castles were constructed and the technique of castle guard. It


is true throughout the whole of history that science and technology have played a bigger rôle than most of our textbooks suppose.
Today, science and technology enter into nearly every relationship and activity in our national life. There are many spheres in which the Government can help science—in scientific manpower, scientific education, the development of research both at universities and under the Government, the application of science to industry, and, not least, the scientific development of overseas territories.
The Government want to see positive development on many different fronts leading to the permeation of our national life, in all its practical aspects, with the methods and spirit of science. It is in that spirit that I ask the Committee to accept this Supplementary Estimate.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I begin by agreeing with the opening remarks of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the importance of this subject. It is probably the most important subject to which the House of Commons will have to pay attention during the life-time of this Parliament, and I therefore regret that on this occasion we should have so short a time to discuss how we are to achieve, within the framework of our constitution, what America and Russia have succeeded in achieving within the framework of theirs.
In contrast with other countries, we have very little time left. If the Government fail to ensure that full advantage is taken of the opportunities which science offers, if they fail to make the Civil Service, industry and the public science-conscious, it may mean economic disaster for the country. It is in that situation, and with, I hope, a proper sense of urgency, that we must review the functions of the Minister for Science.
I have enjoyed and valued the friendship of the noble Lord for many years, and I wish him well in the task which he has undertaken. When I read of his appointment, therefore, I hoped that the Prime Minister had mandated him, in the words of Pope:
Go, wondrous creature! Mount where Science guides. …
It was not, I think, an unnatural hope, because the noble Lord was previously Lord President of the Council, with a

good deal of responsibility for scientific matters, and one would have hoped that with the assumption of his new title his writ would have been extended. The Financial Secretary has made it clear that that is not the case.
The hon. Member quoted the Prime Minister's statement in the House on 30th October, and I will not repeat it, but I should like to take the Committee a stage further and quote what the Prime Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on 3rd November. He was dealing with the arrangements for answering in the House Questions which fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Science. The Prime Minister said:
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health will answer Questions about the Medical Research Council and about radio-biological hazards; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Questions about the Agricultural Research Council—subject to the above—and Nature Conservancy; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education Questions about atomic energy—subject to the above—the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and general scientific matters; and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Questions about space research. In each case the Minister will answer 'as representing the Minister for Science.' Where Questions about atomic energy development relate to matters for which some other Minister is responsible, that Minister will, of course, answer them. For instance, Questions about nuclear-powered merchant shipping will normally be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and Questions about nuclear power stations by my right hon. Friend the Minister Of Power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 856.]
From all these words it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the noble Lord has been "sold a pup". Indeed, there was just a hint of suspicion of this on his part when he met science correspondents on 21st October. I should like to quote to the House what the noble Lord said:
I can almost hear the cynical comment, New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large'. The manifesto promise, the new Minister, is just a piece of political window-dressing. Nothing more is to be expected and everything will go on exactly as it was before. I hope and believe this is a mistake, and I would not have accepted the appointment had I believed otherwise.
I am certain that the noble Lord would not have accepted the responsibility if that had not been his view at the time, but it is clear that the position has not changed to nearly the extent that the Government wish to suggest. Apart from the


addition of responsibility for atomic energy, there is no change in the Lord Privy Seal's position whatever. He has not a single additional power which he had not at the time when he was Lord President of the Council. The Financial Secretary cannot claim that a real difference is made by the fact that the Lord Privy Seal is now to be engaged full-time upon this job. The inference which one must draw from that is that when he was Lord President of the Council the Lord Privy Seal neglected his responsibilities for science in favour of his work as chairman of the Conservative Party, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary does not wish to give that impression.
Let us not forget one significant phrase in the Prime Minister's statement of 30th October, when he used the words, "outside the sphere of defence". The Financial Secretary touched upon that point in his speech. I shall be surprised if the Minister for Science does not reach the conclusion that the preoccupation of our scientists and technologists with defence lies at the very heart of the problem. I am not able to check this figure, but I am told by friends who are scientists that more than half of the scientists and technologists who are engaged in research and development work are at present employed on defence, yet all that sphere of activity falls outside the terms of reference of the Minister for Science.
I must again protest against the division of responsibility inside the House. In the debate on the Atomic Energy Bill, on 18th November, I asked the Minister of Education why he was exercising responsibility for atomic energy. The only reply that he was able to make was that he had had some previous experience of the subject when he was Minister of Works, but that is not an excuse which will wash in the House. It seems to follow from what the right hon. Gentleman said that, whatever Ministry he had gone to, he would still have been speaking on atomic energy. It is ludicrous to suggest that if he had gone to the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office he would still have been answering in the House upon atomic energy. I believe that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the Minister of Education ought to be sufficiently occupied with the work of his own Department instead of accepting an

additional responsibility which will detract him from the very heavy responsibilities which he already bears.
I believe that it is wrong that we should have six Ministers answering for the Minister for Science in the House. We were certainly not given a satisfactory reply by the Financial Secretary on this point They cannot all know fully what is the view of the Minister for Science on the subject which they are covering. I hope that even at this stage the Prime Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of having one Minister responsible in the House, whether it is an Under-Secretary or a Minister of State, who will be here with sole responsibility for dealing with these matters which come within the terms of reference of the Minister for Science.
In one respect I believe that the noble Lord's position is better than it was. I think that he has a more adequate staff than when he was Lord President of the Council. The fact that the atomic energy office has been merged with his own office will mean that he has a more flexible and easily deployed staff at his disposal. When he was Lord President of the Council his senior permanent official was lower in rank than the chief officers in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. Now he has got a Deputy-Secretary at the head of his office and I believe that that represents a step forward.
But I must confess that I am a little worried about the apparent lack of scientific staff in the noble Lord's office. It seems to me that the administrative side is rather over-weighted. The highest-ranking scientific officer he has is a Principal Scientific Officer, which, I understand, is the fourth grade down, and only the third grade from the bottom of the ladder. I tend to agree with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which takes the view that the Minister for Science should have on his staff scientists of sufficient standing to carry authority with scientists outside Government circles.
Before we acquiesce in this rather curious new arrangement which the Government have placed before us, we are, I think, entitled to ask a number of questions about the priorities and


methods of working of the Minister for Science. I wish to begin by asking a question about the manpower situation which was touched upon by the Financial Secretary. Everyone agrees that the shortage of trained men and women is the most serious obstacle to our technological and scientific advance. As was mentioned by the Financial Secretary the Advisory Council has recommended that we ought to be producing 20,000 scientists and engineers per annum by 1970.
That, of course, is the minimum requirement. It may be that it is an under-estimate, and I understand that it makes no provision whatsoever for scientists and technologists to help in the under-developed areas of the world; yet it is there that the great clash is to be fought, and we have a responsibility to put an end to poverty in those lands which we cannot shrug aside.
I ask the Minister of Education to tell us whether he is satisfied that the target of 20,000 a year will be reached and whether he is satisfied that the target is not too low. It may well be that in the light of reflection a target of 25,000 or 30,000 might seem a more worthwhile figure. If that target should prove larger than is required, it would mean that there was a tremendous accretion of strength to the teaching profession.
That brings me to the second point I wish to make, which consists of four questions to the Minister of Education. I venture to put them now because unless the right hon. Gentleman can give satisfactory answers, I am doubtful whether the Minister for Science will be able to achieve very much. First, I wish to ask how the supply of science teachers is being increased, particularly science teachers for the top forms in girls' schools. What are his plans for developing the teaching of science in primary schools? What efforts are being made to get more women interested in following a scientific or technical career? What steps is he taking to prevent too early and too intensive specialisation and to spread the realisation that the arts and science are complementary to one another?
Thirdly, I believe, that we are entitled to know what further steps the Government will take to encourage and help research. I was interested in the figures

given by the Financial Secretary of increased expenditure over the last few years. We welcome this, but we should all like to know rather more from the Minister of Education about what further steps are to be taken. As I understand the position, the University Grants Committee needs more money to support research in the universities. The research councils ought to be able to pay for more research students. The D.S.I.R. ought to be in a position to do more to support research of special importance in the universities. And is not there something to be said for transferring the present functions of the D.S.I.R. in relation to universities to a new research council responsible directly to the Minister for Science? One of the advantages of that would be that the D.S.I.R. would be able to concentrate more on its own stations and the research associations.
My last question to the Government is on the last point which was touched upon by the Financial Secretary. I want to hear more about the way in which the Minister for Science is to co-ordinate the activities of the Government and industry. Clearly, there is at present a great deal of overlapping in research and a consequent waste of manpower. Equally clearly, there are many industries which are neglecting research. I should have thought that at the moment the position of the machine tool industry, in a period of increasing automation, is the sort of thing which ought to be receiving the most urgent attention of the Minister for Science and his colleagues.
There are various ways in which confusion and neglect could be avoided. As the Financial Secretary said, there are no easy answers to these problems, but I should like to bring the attention of the Minister to the recommendation which we on this side of the Committee made in "A New Deal for Science", a policy statement which we issued before the General Election.
In order to supervise the application of science in industry we shall set up … a scientific and technical planning board whose task it will be to advise the Government on the direction of industrial research and development, on the awards of research contracts and on the grants to individual firms.
I should like the Minister to comment on that suggestion and to tell us whether the Government have any similar proposals of their own to put forward.
The Minister for Science has said that he proposes to rely more on the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. I was glad to hear the tribute paid by the hon. Baronet to the Council. It is an admirable body and those serving on it deserve our warmest and most grateful thanks. It is a pity that the Minister for Science has so consistently rejected the advice of the Council on the need for a national scientific reference library. Admirable as it is, however, the Council does seem to have defects. It appears to work very slowly, I think largely because of the nature of the men who compose it and the work they do.
There are full meetings of the Council on only six afternoons in the year. No doubt sub-committees meet much more frequently, but I think that when we get a group of high-powered scientists of this kind it is almost inevitable that they should work slowly because of their great and important preoccupation with the tasks on which they are more generally engaged. It may well be that the Council needs a stronger secretariat than it has at present, and I am convinced that it needs an intelligence unit of its own so that information upon which Government policy can be based can be more readily collected.
Finally, I should like to end by quoting with approval a comment by "Geminus" in the New Scientist of 3rd December:
… the situation needs the presence of a new kind of political animal—the kind of person who is able to relate matters of scientific policy to wider questions of more orthodox politics.
There are a number of such beings on both sides of the Committee and even those of us who are less erudite in these subjects are conscious of the importance of the task. But many of us are doubtful whether the progress made will be impressive.
I suspect that the progress of the noble Lord will be like that of science in "Locksley Hall":
Science moves, but slowly, slowly, creeping on from point to point.
I hope that we are wrong. We hope that the appointment of the noble Lord will produce a scientific revolution and we wish him well. But the Committee will forgive us if we are not over-confident

that the machinery proposed in this Supplementary Estimate is adequate for so gigantic and urgent a task.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) was, in the main, helpful. The hon. Member referred to his long friendship with the Lord Privy Seal. I am just wondering how that continued after his television broadcast at the opening of the General Election campaign.
Most of us welcome the appointment of the Lord Privy Seal to his new post, because he is certainly an enthusiast, a man with wide political experience and one who, I think, will do a splendid job. We also hope that he will have time to travel, because one of the most important things for the Minister for Science is to get around to see what is going on and to encourage and hear the points of view of universities, colleges and industry as well.
I attach great importance to technical colleges, not just to universities. Over the years Britain has produced men in industry, through night schools and technical colleges, who have emerged as very great men in the scientific sphere. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is to look after this aspect, because he has had long experience at the Board of Trade and knows the requirements of industry and what it means to Britain to have scientists contributing to our economic future. I feel that it is unfortunate that there is not a spokesman for the Minister for Science in this House. I know that that responsibility is distributed among several Ministers, but it would have been a good thing to have had an Under-Secretary in this House, even if he were slightly underemployed in the early days.
In opening the debate, the Financial Secretary referred to Sir Alexander Todd in general terms. He has been head of the Council for seven years and I am sure he would like to pay tribute to the hard and industrious work put in by Sir Alexander over so many years. It is remarkable that he is able to spare so much time for all the work on which he has been engaged and still to take on further commitments. I have seldom


known a man take on so much work and make so great a contribution. I only hope that his health will stand up to these heavy tasks.
My concern in this subject is principally with aviation matters. That is an industry which is being rationalised and rapidly run down through no fault of its own, and certainly through no fault of the Government, but because it has been caught up by world events. We are not alone in this difficulty, for when I was in the United States for a few days, three or four weeks ago, I found from what I read and in discussions with Americans that they are to do what we did two and a half years ago as set out in the Defence White Paper; and they are faced with a much bigger problem.
In this country, we have large Government establishments such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, that at Boscombe Down and that at Bedford and many others, and I am not satisfied that in the past there has been sufficient co-ordination between these establishments. I am concerned whether those units can be fully employed in the years to come. There may have to be some rationalisation in the Government establishments for research. I do not mean that we should lessen their importance. but that we should get more out of them.
We should not forget, either, that industry contributes in a large way to research. The contribution made by industry itself is generally underestimated. I should like to see something done by the Minister for Science to see that industry as a whole gets the benefit of individual industrial research. Frequently, that benefit is not passed on. I remember that in the days of the Labour Government millions of pounds were spent on the Brabazon aircraft, at Filton. I did not quibble about that at the time, but the total expenditure was £8 million, £10 million or £11 million. Large runways had to be constructed and, finally, the venture was dropped, I believe under a Conservative Government. I do not think that much gain from all that expenditure was ever passed on to the aircraft industry as a whole.
My quarrel is that these things are kept very much in watertight compartments whereas much more co-ordina-

tion is required. Today, at Question Time, the Minister of Aviation referred to a Question by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) about the Farey Rotodyne. I am told that that venture will cost £6 million to develop. The firm concerned has been on the verge of getting orders from British European Airways for many months now, but nothing definite has happened. B.E.A.C. wants a larger Rotodyne which must be less noisy, but all this will cost a great deal of money and so far as I know the firm concerned is not in a position to meet the cost of £6 million. Here is a case in which there needs to be very close cooperation and a merging of industry and Government Departments with financial help if the Government are satisfied that the venture can earn orders for us from overseas.
There is the same problem with laminar flow and the porous wing of an aircraft, which can save drag of the order of 35 per cent. Much has been done in recent years on this question, but it has not been sufficiently exploited. The same applies to blind landing devices. It is hopeless for this country to try to compete with the United States in all these matters. We have to try to select our priorities within our finances and use our brains and resources on them rather than trying to do everything. Our aviation industry this year will export about £170 million worth of goods, covering airframes and engines. It is a fantastic amount, but it is bound to come down in the next few years unless urgent action is taken.
I am quite satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has been doing all he can in the short time in which he has been at the Ministry. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that there will be close co-ordination. It has got to be closer. It is no good two Ministers occasionally having a meeting with one or two permanent civil servants. These things have to be worked out more closely, because far too much is at stake than simply discussing this matter in a few meetings a year.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade what is being done about the finances of the Jodrell Bank Experimental Station,


which is situated on the fringe of my constituency, Macclesfield. That is a great experiment which has cost an enormous amount of money. It is backed by Manchester University and the Government are participating to a small extent. I believe that £70,000 is owing. During the last few years, but for Jodrell Bank, Britain would not have been in space research at all, but it has put Britain's name all over the world.
I am told that because of the financial straits in which it is placed the establishment is receiving letters from schoolboys in America who are sending dollar bills to contribute towards the cost. With the amount of money spent on scientific development it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that all this money should be owing. I should like the Government to step in and put the station on a sound financial basis.
More could be done by the Lord Privy Seal in working closely with the Common Market countries. We want to get closer to them on many matters and I can think of no better approach than that which can be made through science. Much can be done in the aircraft industry and in other industries. I ask that my right hon. Friend shall fully examine this matter to see whether we can work more closely with our friends on the Continent on it. The whole future of this country and our economic prosperity and standard of life depend on the knowledge we can put into the heads of our young people who are coming into industry to design and manufacture the goods we have to export. It is as simple as that.
In spite of all the other advantages America has we have a great advantage in this respect in the boy coming from the technical college at 18 years of age and developing into a great scientist. That is why we were able to invent things like radar, jet engines and penicillin. I wish my right hon. Friend could look into this side of the problem and urge the Government to give their fullest support. I personally take this opportunity of wishing the Minister for Science every success.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: We on this side of the Committee are in a great deal of agreement with the extreme good

sense of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), particularly in his references to the necessity for a for a Minister in this House able to answer for the Minister for Science, and on the question of greater co-ordination between industry and the Government, and, as I understood him, between firm and firm in industry. There is too much secrecy in this country, and more disclosure generally of the results of research by industrial firms, such as that which takes place in the United States, would be of great advantage. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's point about co-ordination between the Minister for Science and the Minister of Aviation, and on this matter I shall, in fact, be following him fairly closely in my speech.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) that this appointment was received with a great deal of scepticism. It is not that scientists do not want us to take a great interest in their affairs, although they do not want control of all research to be centralised by any means. On the other hand, they want to feel that there is a real interest in greater co-ordination. I think that there is a fear that this appointment is merely a piece of window-dressing in order to carry out an electoral promise.
Perhaps I may quote from a recently published book on this subject which is of very great interest. It is the third book published by the Science in Industry Committee and it is called "Science in Industry," by Professors Carter and Williams. They say:
We doubt if it can be said that a Government policy on the application of science really exists. The facts on which such a policy should be based have still be be collected and assessed; and this work requires extensive and continuous study by a group containing both scientists and economists.
I fully agree with this, and I want to ask the Government whether in fact they will carry it out. There seems to be a slight gleam of hope, because Professor Carter has recently been appointed a member of the Executive Council of D.S.I.R., and I shall be interested to see his influence on the other members of the Council and on Ministers in the carrying out of this proposal. It is a fact that we do want a much greater assessment of the relative advantages of different fields of advance, especially from the economic point of view.


The Minister is concerned both with fundamental research and with applied research and the development of new products and processes. It is true that these are not always clearly distinguishable but in fact lie on a continuum stretching from one extreme to the other. I agree with the view of Professors Carter and Williams that the control of basic research should be general and intermittent, and that development should be much more detailed and continuous. With this thought in mind, I support the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, which was included in a statement put out by our party during the General Election, for the separation of support for basic research in the universities and the colleges of technology from the D.S.I.R., putting it under the control of some new research council, and allocating to it adequate funds for the purpose.
Much more money is needed for basic research in this country. It is not only that without basic research and new knowledge the universities and the technical colleges will not flourish, but, as we all know, there have been many discoveries which did not appear to have any practical value at the time, but which turned out in the end to be of very great value. If this were done, the D.S.I.R. could then concentrate on applied research and the development of those projects which are most likely to show an economic return to the nation in a reasonable time. As far as possible—and of course it is not possible to do it entirely—we should separate fundamental research which has no sort of immediate economic value from applied research and development where there are economic objectives in view. It is not true that all scientists—or indeed any scientists; I do not know—object to having a target at which to aim, even an economic target. I remember that some of us recently visited one of the basic research establishments of one of our very large firms in this country. When they set it up, the firm hoped that it would attract outstanding men of science—holders of the Ph.D. and so on—who would be attracted by the idea of uncontrolled research work. In fact they found that most of them preferred to feel that they were making a contribution to the economic objectives of the firm. I do not think that it is a fact that scientists object to having a target to aim

at, but there are different kinds of scientists.
Here, it is true, and the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred to it, that perhaps the most important problem which the Minister will have to face in attempting to co-ordinate scientific developments among his colleagues is that of the priorities. We have limited resources, and even if we were to reduce, as I think we should, the enormous amount of our resources going to defence research and development, we should still be faced with a shortage of scientific resources. Should we then concentrate on the new, exciting and very expensive fields of rapid advance, or should we try to spread the use of science among that much too large part of British industry which is clearly—again in the words of Carter and Williams—
caught in the net of its own backwardness"?
To some extent, we have to do both, but the first of these presents us with very considerable difficulties, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred. First of all, one of the main fields of rapid advance is in aircraft, and this is not under the control of the Minister. We do not know how far there will be co-ordination in the use of resources for this purpose. This will be necessary owing to the very rapid changes that are taking place in the form of the aircraft industry, and it may well be that substantial scientific resources will he made available, or will be required, as the case may be. There must be some co-ordination of the study and availability of those resources which are switchable from one industry to another.
I was told recently at the exhibition of marine-nuclear reactors that the design teams had been able to recruit engineers from the aircraft industry, which was contracting, and that it was quite possible to convert engineers with good basic training from one industry to another. Therefore, the problem of the examination and to some extent the planning of the use of our scientific resources and manpower, must be under one head.
In these expensive fields of nuclear power, space research and supersonic jet aircraft, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, we cannot compete with the two giants already in this field, who spend ten times as much on research


as we do. In the one case, the country is able to direct its research without any democratic control, while the other country is rich, and has a great surplus of wealth, so that it is able to do much more than we can in these fields.
We have to carve out for ourselves special lines of development and concentrate our resources on those in which we may become supreme. I would also agree that for the larger projects we must co-operate with the countries of Europe, for instance, on the lines of the latest agreement between the Atomic Energy Authority in this country and Euratom. We cannot develop 10, 15 or 20 types of reactors as the Americans can, and we must, therefore, concentrate on the things that we can do best.
There are some fields in which extensive competition can be wasteful, and in fact make development almost impossible. I was interested to read lately that the American aircraft manufacturers have now realised that there cannot be a large number of separate projects for a supersonic jet airliner. The manufacturers are now considering forming a syndicate to develop a single-design project. This is very significant, because if they cannot afford to do it, then we certainly cannot. I have already said that. I believe that we cannot possibly afford to develop a supersonic jet airliner, though whether we might do so in co-operation with other European countries I do not know.
Equally important with these large and expensive projects is the task of spreading the use of scientific methods throughout industry. The President of the Board of Trade has recently emphasised the over-dependence of our exports at present on one or two industries, particularly motor cars, and suggested that we needed to have a wider spread of our exports over a larger number of industries. It is by now a commonplace that the types of industry which are most suitable will be those which manufacture and sell sophisticated products based on research and development. There have been some very alarming reports recently about the backwardness of a number of our industries in the use of scientific methods, particularly machine tools, textile

machinery and shipbuilding. Far more money could be spent on research, not only in private industry, but to a large extent in transport and one or two other public industries—another example is the use of our main raw material, coal.
All these industries—machine tools, textile machinery, shipbuilding, railways and, I suppose, coal—employ a quite inadequate number of graduate engineers and scientists. Last year the British machine-tool industry recruited two graduates whereas the German machine-tool industry recruited 500—not five as I was quoted as saying in the House the other day. How can we hope in the future to compete in these fields when the difference in scientific knowledge will be so great? We were able to sell the machines when ordinary standard equipment could be sold. Other countries will make these in the future and, unless we bring about an advance in the whole technique of design and manufacture, we shall inevitably fail. The Minister should not hesitate to use the method of the development contract or to set up research and development companies in industries which have not the scientific resources to undertake new work themselves.
Hon. Members opposite may feel reluctant to have Government interference and possibly Government participation in research and development, and eventually Government participation in the production of prototypes and even of manufacture. But those with any scientific knowledge or knowledge of what is happening in industry know in their heart of hearts that this is being forced inevitably upon them. No doctrinaire views on nationalisation, public ownership or public participation will enable them to escape the dilemma if they want this country to remain in the forefront of industrial nations in the future.
I also ask the Ministers on the Front Bench to convey to their noble Friend my hope that there will be more support for the social sciences. These rapid technical advances create serious social problems, both communal and industrial. We shall not reap full advantage from the new changes in technology if our management methods themselves are not more scientific and if we do not have more research into management methods and structure. It is also very important


to study the effects on workers at all levels of industry of the changing requirements in skills and the changing social organisation of our factories arising from these new processes. More research into technical education and methods of industrial training for these new skills will be necessary.
I realise that in many of these fields the Minister for Science is no more than a co-ordinator. It is a great pity that there will be no one in the House of Commons, like a Parliamentary Secretary, who is directly involved in the administration of the Department and so can speak with the voice of the Department. I say this without disrespect to the members of the Treasury Bench, but they will have to act as a sort of post office. The noble Lord will be judged by the degree with which he imbues his colleagues with the need for scientific method and the impetus which he provides, and in particular by the degree with which he imbues the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the necessity for adequate funds both for basic research and for applied research and development.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I certainly wish to extend a general welcome to the appointment of my right hon. and noble Friend as Minister for Science, as does the House of Commons as a whole. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) mentioned, there was a certain amount of criticism in various quarters over the appointment. The hon. Member referred to it having been spoken of as "window dressing". I am not very worried about that, because I cannot see right hon. and noble Friend as a window dresser's dummy. I suspect that we shall certainly have action from him rather than mere posturing and dummy display.
We should welcome the appointment in the form in which it has been made because, while it is obvious that we have doubts about how the work of a Minister for Science should develop in this country, it is better that we should start with his responsibilities not being too specifically laid down. I therefore welcome the fact that there is some vagueness at present about how his responsibilities shall be carried out. This is a beginning, and an important beginning. Equally, I hope that in the months ahead the House of Commons will be

critical of how this beginning is turning out, because I feel that this is of such importance to the country's economy that from time to time the House of Commons should give a critical view to the effect which the appointment is having.
It is important that we now have a full time Minister watching this part of our national work and life. I hope that it will be important not only in raising the status and priority of science within the Government's control, which the appointment empowers, but also in providing a senior member of the Government who will weigh up the needs of science, both in research and development. We have never had this before, and it can be of great benefit. I hope that my right hon. and noble Friend will not be just a warden or overlord of scientific institutions, but will regard it as part of his responsibilities to overlook the total volume and direction of scientific work, both research and application. I hope that he will be looking for gaps and thinking of the need for stimulating the filling of those gaps.
As the defence programme changes and perhaps becomes even more specialised, we must guard against the loss of scientific impetus within industry which the old type of defence programme provided. We owe a tremendous lot in industry at the moment to the by-products of research work undertaken in the first place, for purely defence purposes. We shall get that benefit in the future from the very highly technical work now going on in such specialised fields as rocketry and similar abstruse subjects. They use electronics and other important control mechanisms which will also be of importance throughout the whole of industry. There is a danger, however, that the narrowing of our defence research, which, I imagine, will take place in the years ahead, will leave a gap in scientific stimulus which industry as a whole has in the past derived from work undertaken primarily for defence purposes.
I hope, therefore, that one of the things my right hon. and noble Friend will be looking at is the possible need for stimulating research work throughout industry by research contracts. It is too early to lay down what form they should take or in what fields they should be given, but there may well be a big field of work in which we shall fall behind


unless there is Government stimulus. We can rely on private industry to undertake the short-term work, but there are longer-term and more uncertain projects which will need Government stimulus.
I realise that hon. Members opposite may take those remarks as being an attack on private enterprise, but it is an attack against which on some other occasion I shall be very prepared to defend it. At the moment, I wish to stress that the need for research contracts is one to which my right hon. and noble Friend will have to give considerable attention in the years ahead.

Mr. Albu: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the research contract method is likely to be of any use to an industry that does not employ scientists or engineers, and has no tradition of scientific research and development?

Mr. Carr: I agree, and, if I may, I shall deal with that point in a moment.
This question of research contracts ties up very closely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I cannot but be disturbed by a fear that there may be too much of a split between defence science and civil science carried out under Government control. I was encouraged to hear what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had to say about the links between the Advisory Council and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation, but I cannot help wondering if those links are not rather too vague.
Here, again, it may be too early to pronounce judgment, but the House of Commons should watch closely as this work develops. There is a close link between defence and civil scientific effort, and unless the two are closely co-ordinated, unless there is rationalisation and co-ordination between Service and civil establishments, between Government establishments and private industry, we may get gaps, on the one hand, and wasteful overlapping, on the other. I hope that as the months go by we shall have an assurance that this danger of a split between defence and civil work is being properly looked at.
It is when we come to the application of scientific knowledge and the results of scientific development throughout

industry, that my noble Friend has, perhaps, one of his most important and, at the same time, one of his most difficult tasks. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, it is very difficult to give research contracts to an industry that does not employ scientists. It is, in fact, impossible. That does not worry me so much, because I suspect that the research can be done in other institutions, both in industry and outside it. What does worry me is how we are to get the results of research into industries that employ either not many scientists or none at all. This is not something that any Government can solve by compulsion. We cannot order an industry to take in scientists. If we did, they would probably not be used.
I believe that one of the first needs in British industry is to have some of those who are responsible for its direction able to talk at least some scientific language. For that reason I hope that the new course that is being developed at my own university, Cambridge—which is to be a combination of the scientific and the more general economic course, with a slant on business administration—will be successful.
Those going into industry on the administrative management side of the smaller and medium-sized companies must have some knowledge of science if that sector of industry is ever to make use of scientific knowledge. We simply will not get these scientific methods and techniques applied unless someone at the top of a company ceases to be afraid of science and has some idea of what science, and scientists generally, can provide for his organisation.
We should draw encouragement from the fact that over the last decade there has undoubtedly been a great increase in the recruitment by industry of university graduates. They may not all have been scientifically trained, but the intake of graduates, with their academic training and the width of understanding that that implies, means that we shall have in charge of British industry an increasing number of people who can take the wider view and encourage the development of scientific methods.
For the Government, this is very largely a matter of encouraging the right educational policy, and of seeing, so far as


it lies within the power of Government, that universities are providing the right courses for those who may later go into industry; and certainly of seeing that the schools are supplied with an adequate number of science teachers. As has already been pointed out, we shall not increase our understanding and application of science unless we get a fairly rapid increase in the number of science teachers.
That applies particularly to girls' schools. I say that, not because I have great dreams of enormous numbers of women scientists who will be employed in industry, but because it is obvious that it is through the training of more women in this way that we may to a large extent look to increasing the supply of scientifically-trained teachers in our schools.
The Government should also bear in mind that industry needs not only scientists and technologists but technicians and skilled workers. It will be wasteful if we merely increase the numbers of scientists and technologists. The output of the technical colleges is of tremendous importance, and also of great importance is the supply of skilled craftsmen. Here, again, the Government are in an awkward position, because by the common consent of both employers and trade unions the training of craftsmen is a job for industry itself. But I share with many others the fear that industry is not doing that job to anything like a sufficient extent.
It is difficult to see how Government can put this right, but I beg all the Ministers who can to do everything possible to stimulate and encourage industry rapidly to increase the number of apprenticeships it is making available. Unless we get an increase in scientists, technologists, technicians and skilled workers, all the efforts of the scientists, however encouraged by the Minister for Science, will, to some extent, be frustrated.
There are many difficulties and uncertainties to face, and what success we achieve will greatly depend on the reaction of industry itself. I think that we are right in welcoming this appointment since it will increase and concentrate the attention that the Government give in the future to this important matter compared with the attention it has had in the past.
I am afraid that I must couple this general welcome of the appointment with the criticism already voiced of the arrangements that have been made in this House for answering for the Minister for Science. This being a new appointment, I appreciate that it may be difficult to cover this aspect all at once, but I hope that before long the Government will make whatever arrangements may be necessary to have one Minister answering in this House for my noble Friend.
Until that happens, I, for one, will find it difficult to believe that this coordination and concentration of attention that we all want is actually taking place. However, apart from that one specific criticism, I am sure that the Committee is right to welcome this appointment and to support this Supplementary Estimate.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I am sure that it will be agreed in all quarters of the Committee that this is an occasion of some significance, for whether or not we have, in fact, created a real Minister with power or merely a figurehead is one thing, but undoubtedly this debate marks a step forward in the official recognition of science by the Government. I suppose it can be said that it is one of the few good things that have emerged from the General Election. Certainly both major parties made proposals about the future of science; naturally I think that the proposals made by my party would have been more effective, but at least we now have constitutional recognition of science.
The wonder is perhaps that neither of the parties have moved more quickly in this field than they have. We have only to think of guided missiles and the fight against disease to realise the importance of science today. Even in such humdrum matters as food preservation, much money has been lost to the nation through the need for adequate research. The amount lost was estimated last year as £80 million. That money would have been saved if we had adopted more up-to-date methods of preventing deterioration of food from pests. In matters like the prevention of corrosion the nation spent last year


about £100 million which could have been better employed.
I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said on the Fairey Rotodyne, about which I had a Question down this afternoon. I think the hon. Member was using this case as an illustration of the need for forward planning in scientific research and development in the aircraft industry. He made a fair point in saying that the blame for the fact that this enterprising project is literally grounded should not be placed entirely on the company. True, I think the company might have spoken with a more precise and firm voice on occasions, but it has a fine research team which in this and other cases has produced a revolutionary project. I think, however, that the amount to be spent on development is much too large for this comparatively small concern. Better coordination would have brought out the financial commitments to those in authority, at an earlier stage than has been the case and smoothed the path for the Government and the firm.
I differ from hon. Members opposite in that I think that if the State makes a financial contribution, as it must in this case, it must also have some influence on the policy that is adopted by the firm. We are now in a position in which we are not getting the aircraft which we ought to have had, and which in this case I believe is a world beater. I believe that the team which has produced it may well break up. As I said this afternoon at Question Time, there have been dismissals which have caused great concern in Hayes and to those of us who are interested in the welfare of this industry.
The Financial Secretary, in outlining the proposals this afternoon, was careful to emphasise the limitation of the new office. Indeed, the Lord Privy Seal, the new Minister for Science, was careful to do this in an article which he wrote for Nature on 24th October this year when he said:
My authority over the Atomic Energy Authority and the Research Councils is no greater than my predecessors and I had before, and I have no intention of taking away from them the authority which Parliament has given to them, or the freedom which they now enjoy to perform their functions without detailed interference.

Precisely what those limitations mean was spelt out by the then Lord President before the election, and it was confirmed in his article on 24th October, to a deputation which he received from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. On that occasion he said that it was important to remember that the Lord President of the Council was not in the same position towards the research councils as a Minister in charge of a Department. He was not entitled to act as a court of appeal and to substitute his opinion for theirs; his position was rather a supervisory one and his function was to intervene only if the councils seemed to him to be acting perversely.
That is a pretty negative sort of authority. In the light of this spelling out of what appears to be the present position, I hope that we shall hear something more encouraging about the positive functions of the Ministry when the Minister replies to the debate. One can understand the reference to a remark which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) made earlier,
New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.
The Lord Privy Seal, summing up his position, said in the article of 24th October:
My purpose is to make the voice of science coherent and articulate under Government encouragement, and in one real sense to make science self-governing under Government inspiration.
The great advantage of that statement is that one can read into it whatever one likes. Those of us who hope for a positive lead will hope that that is what it means.
A generous tribute was paid by the Financial Secretary to the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and I am sure that it is shared by all who read its valuable reports. I should like to know whether it would be possible for the Council's report to be presented to Parliament annually so that it may come under Parliamentary scrutiny and obtain the publicity which would result. This would keep the Advisory Council's recommendations in the forefront of public opinion. So often these excellent reports seem to be ignored by everybody until Members put down Questions about them.
I wish to add my voice to all those who have protested about the six Ministers who are to answer in this House for the Minister for Science. In view of the statement that the new Minister wishes, as he said,
…to make the voice of science coherent and articulate …
it seems very peculiar to employ six Ministers to do that in this House. I should have thought that the Conservative manifesto on this point, to avoid a charge of window dressing, would result in a Parliamentary Secretary being appointed to speak directly for the Minister. With the best will in the world, it is impossible for six people to speak about the Ministry's policy as a whole. I should like to reinforce what has been said in this respect.
Again, one must have regard to the structure of the staff, the details of which are given on page 13 of this Vote. I concede that what is required in this office is not a vast department with a large number of people in it, certainly not at this stage of its development. There should be a small high-powered office in a very pivotal position. There are thirty-nine persons listed as being engaged in this office, of whom I am surprised to find five are doorkeepers. Whether they are employed to open the door for the various Ministers I do not know. There may be some special reason for this, but, in fact, only two are scientific officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale pointed out, the most important of these, the principal scientific officer is only equal to an administrative principal.
If we are to have a small office to advise and co-ordinate policy, surely it is necessary to have really top-ranking scientific officers in the Department. There are three other grades above this grade in the staff structure—senior scientific officer, deputy chief scientific officer and chief senior scientific officer. Surely one of these will be required if the office is to do the work that we want it to do. It is necessary not only for the Minister to have at his disposal expert advice, but in the negotiations between this Department and others it is necessary for the Minister's advisers to speak with proper status. With all respect to whoever the eminent individual appointee is to be, unless we have top scientists in

the Department doing the job it will obviously not be what is required.
Before I sit down, I wish to refer to the closure of the Microbiological Group of D.S.I.R. about which I have asked Questions. I use it as a convenient illustration because I think it shows the sort of co-ordination needed in the future. On 21st July I asked what was to happen to the invaluable work previously done by the Group and I was told that grants would be available to universities and others. Subsequently, I asked for, and received, a list of projects. Some very interesting work is still being done, but it is clear that there are some gaps.
As far as I know, nothing is being done on sulphur bacteria and on fundamental work on the microbial formation of methane which is of very great importance to animal husbandry, gas in mines, disposal of sewage and a number of things. This is not merely an academic assignment; it impinges on life at a number of points. That work has now stopped. This stoppage is something which I hope the new Ministry will prevent in the future. If vital work is not covered by university or other research grants, I hope the work will be done by D.S.I.R. or some other body.
I am sure that we all wish this new experimental office well. We hope that it will have real powers. It is perhaps appropriate that this innovation was introduced by the Financial Secretary because, even if we get the constitutional position right, it is quite clear that finance and its co-ordination will be very important indeed.
In a debate on science and industry in another place a few months ago it was said that on applied and fundamental research, excluding defence and nuclear physics, Britain was spending between £50 and £60 million a year, whilst for the same type of research the United States was spending about £800 million. I am aware that the United States has a population about three times as large as our own, but the fact is that she is spending sixteen times as much as we are in this direction. The success of the Minister for Science depends not only on the constitution of the Department but also on the powers which he has in relation to the finance. I hope that that will be forthcoming as well.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I believe that all of us today must feel rather happy in that this is the first Vote for the Minister for Science. It is rather like attending a christening and making a small present to a child who within a few years will grow up into a giant and have fantastic responsibilities.
I, like other hon. Members, feel very deeply on the point that the Minister for Science replies in another place. As I fundamentally believe that a Department of Science is today a Department of modern opportunity, I believe that without question there should be a spokesman in the House of Commons on all the problems concerned therein. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, realising that science has no party and no politics—and this is the feature that I want to discuss this afternoon—must welcome the creation of a Department of Science. But it is no good having a Minister for Science or a Department of Science unless that Minister and that Department have the necessary power to carry out what is urgently required in the scientific field.
It is utterly useless any hon. Member thinking that in the world of 1960 we can any longer afford to keep our secrets to ourselves or not expect that other countries in very considerable groups will form some scheme of dissemination of knowledge either for their own benefit against us or as some kind of guarantee for their own future. After all, we all know that mankind at the present moment is going into a completely new era. Everyone knows that if there were a third world war not only would civilisation itself be destroyed, but even vegetation. Therefore, into the new world into which we are going there is only one hope, that is, the pursuit of complete truth—in other words, science with an inspirational and divine background.
Can we in this country achieve that? Can this Department achieve it? We must hope that it can. This new office has not only to provide intellectual leadership but moral leadership as well. If it is to succeed at all it must provide the canalisation of scientific thought and effort for peaceful purposes and for the edification of all our people in the utilisation of science.
One can ask just a few questions about this matter, about this Minister and

about this Department. What is the fundamental problem facing this Department today in regard to the people of this country? The greatest challenge in modern times, as I am sure the Minister of Education will agree when he replies to the debate, is how to make scientific knowledge acceptable to the man in the street. Up to now the man in the street has been afraid of it. He has seen what has happened elsewhere in the world and confidence in the future has not kept pace with his fear.
The world of 1960 offers new avenues of scientific discovery leading to enormous wealth and the widening of our horizons on, above and below the ground, and even below the sea. This is one of the problems that the Department will have to face. One question which comes to my mind is, for instance, which authority or which body will effect the study of cosmic rays which will unquestionably affect the next generation? Which body or which group of bodies in this country will be concerned with interplanetary exploration and research into outer space, to which I referred on a previous occasion in this Chamber?
Even on that issue this country cannot afford to be left behind. We cannot afford to leave to the Soviet Union and the United States of America the whole of inter-planetary exploration, because we dare not be left behind in the field of modern research and knowledge. Why, in fact, could we not have a joint effort by all the three great nations in this sphere? I have asked that question before, and I hope that I shall get some support from hon. Members on that issue.
Another thing I would like to know, for instance, is whether we could not use guided missiles for the forwarding of our mail and freight between London and New York. If scientific research has produced the fantastic knowledge that lies behind guided missiles, that surely is something that could immediately be translated for the common good. After all, what is scientific knowledge for? Is it for the destruction of mankind. or for the cure of medical evils? The question of research into cancer and into isotopes, which can double, treble or quadruple the crops of the backward nations and enable them to be stored, if necessary for 300 years,


and kept as fresh at the end as they were at the beginning, are just two of the thousands of questions that the Department will have to solve in the next twenty-five years.
Surely the one thing above all else that is necessary is to have a spokesman for that Department in the House. I do not want to weary the Committee by going through a list of the public authorities and bodies for which the Lord Privy Seal is responsible. All I want to be sure of is that the Lord Privy Seal and this Department will not be held responsible for public bodies over which neither he nor his Department have any control, because that would lead to the utmost confusion, which could never be straightened out in the next ten years.
However we view the future, we know that the forward-looking nations realise, above all else, that scientific knowledge must begin in the primary schools and must continue in the various other schools, right through to the universities. Every opportunity must be provided for the aspiring leaders of the future to acquire the necessary knowledge at the earliest moment. I gladly add my welcome to those which have already been expressed at the creation of this Department, and I wish it and the Minister well.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am somewhat surprised that the creation of this Department has been approved by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and that no word of warning or criticism has been uttered. Science has at last broken free from the theological impediments which hitherto have been put in its way. It is no longer heretical to make a new scientific pronouncement. Galileo, Newton and Darwin were all denounced as heretics, and even today there are some people who believe that if a person holds the view that Darwin disproves the first few chapters of Genesis he will have a very warm time in the next world.
Now that science has escaped from the theologians it is to be put in bondage by the Treasury. Let us have no doubt what the revolution proposed today means. It is not by accident that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury brings the matter before the Committee. I do not know what the universities of

England would have said at the beginning of this century if it had been proposed that they should be given as much State money as they now receive, with promises of greater amounts in the future. It makes me realise how tremendous the revolution is, not merely in this House, but in the future outlook of learned bodies concerned with this matter.
I thought that it was a very interesting quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) gave from remarks made by the Lord Privy Seal. Apparently he said:
My purpose is to make the voice of science coherent and articulate … under Government inspiration.
All I can say is that that marks the death knell of independent scientific research, which is the most valuable form of research. To rely on Government inspiration through the kind of Department described to us by the Financial Secretary, is to show a faith that even the theologians never displayed in their attitude to this matter. I regret to say that I do not believe that State-directed research is going to mean the end of the difficulties which confront this nation.

Mr. Frederick Peart: It will be important, though.

Mr. Ede: It may be, but a lot of dangers are very important.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend opposed to the purposeful relation, by the Government. of science to public ends?

Mr. Ede: No. My hon. Friend has uttered a large number of words, every one of which needs to be analysed before an emphatic assent can be given to such a proposition. My hon. Friend and myself would probably have a quite different picture of what those wonderful words convey to our respective minds. I hope my hon. Friend will believe that I have a mind, just as he has.

Mr. Edelman: Having said that, will my right hon. Friend now answer my question?

Mr. Ede: No. I am not going to answer a question phrased in words which can be taken to mean anything the questioner or the person answering likes to make them mean. I should


probably arrive at something quite different from my hon. Friend in the end.
I do not believe that we can rely on Government inspiration in this matter. Let us suppose that a certain line of scientific advance happens not to coincide with the view of the Government of the day. Under those circumstances, what is to happen to some of the most promising forms of research which may be in process of being carried out at any given moment? One of the disasters of the first half of this century has been that the individual has tried to keep certain lines of research under his control. Secrecy means that in all the great civilised nations of the world, people are carrying on parallel investigations at the same moment, and still proceeding by way of trial and error.
If we had the scientific spirit of previous ages we should be in a much better position. In those days, when men made certain discoveries, they published them to the world, and so helped each other. Let us consider even so elementary a matter as the discovery of oxygen. Most Englishmen attribute it to Joseph Priestley, but he merely discovered that there was one component of air which sustained life. He did not call it oxygen. He published the results of his researches, however, and this led the great French chemist, Lavoisier, who had almost reached the same point, to push right through and complete the experiment which Priestley had carried on from the beginning.
That sort of thing does not go on now, and I join with the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) in the hope that we shall now be able to get back to the old free trade in science, with each nation publishing the results of the researches of its scientists, but not under Government inspiration; indeed, it must sometimes be even against the inspiration of the theologians.
About a year ago, I read an article in an American newspaper complaining about the continued secrecy in America and asking whether America now hopes to keep the Russians from finding out what they already know. It has been the break-through of Russia in this work which, I think, has led to a worsening rather than an improvement of the situation.
When I was in America in 1958, I was astonished at the state of terror there was about the progress made by the Russians in science. We should try to return to the old scientific approach to the problems of the universe. We should arrange that studies are still pursued by scientists working independently, pushing further back—to use the apt phrase of the Financial Secretary—the frontiers of knowledge. After all, that is what scientific effort really is. It is not confined merely to physics but covers the whole range of human knowledge and is best pursued when people who carry it on do so because of their love of the search for truth, not because it suits a particular Government at a particular time to have something in particular investigated.
I have spoken of the dangers which I foresee. It is not to be thought that I do not welcome the recognition by this Committee and by the people of this country of the great place that scientific research and inquiry ought to have in our life. Only just over 100 years ago, Charles Darwin, as a boy at Shrewsbury, was publicly reproved in front of the whole school because, during the vacation, he had done some chemical experiments in a shed under the direction of his brother. In the same school, where it was the custom to give a whole day's holiday to celebrate a First Class, when the first scientific First Class was obtained, Kennedy, the great headmaster, gave only half a day because, he said, "It is only science."
Those of us who have long opposed the predominance of classics in the universities and in our educational life are, in one way, having our revenge today. But we still make a plea that the scientist shall be instructed in the humanities. We must be quite sure today that the classicist has a nodding acquaintance with the science which will so largely shape the world he is to live in.
I realise that what I have said will be very unsatisfactory to the people who concoct questions like the one concocted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman)—the kind of question which leads to controversy which will last at least for the next ten years. I believe that the future of the world depends upon the ability


of the scientists of all nations to cooperate in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. In the time of Priestley and his contemporaries, experiments were conducted with apparatus which would, today, be regarded as too dangerous for use in the science forms of a secondary modern school. It was comparatively inexpensive. Modern scientific research requires apparatus so elaborate and expenditure so great that only large financial corporations and the major States can now conduct it. Both insist upon oaths of secrecy from the people employed in the vital parts of the investigations.
The result is, as the hon. Member for Watford said, that people generally fear the advance of science.

Mr. Peart: No, they do not.

Mr. Ede: Yes, they do. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) never heard anybody complain about what may happen if a hydrogen bomb were dropped anywhere near? There is secrecy, and always the hope that, if it came to a showdown, we should be one jump ahead, but with the haunting dread that, on the day, we may be one jump behind, and, behind it all, the certainty that if everyone jumps together the result will be mutual suicide.

Mr. Basil de Ferranti: Surely, this is an affair for the politicians, not an affair for science.

Mr. Ede: I was very careful to say that that is the fear of the ordinary man. I am not talking about the fears of the scientists. I was supporting what was said by the hon. Member for Watford. That is the attitude of the ordinary man about what he regards as the most advanced form of science he has to contemplate.
Secrecy, more than anything else, is the great enemy to the progress of science. It is a hindrance to the scientists themselves. It creates in the minds of people the idea that there is some dreadful secret which cannot be revealed to the ordinary man for fear that he might step in and say, "We will not go on with this at all".
We are to have a Ministry for Science. This is a new kind of name to give to a Ministry in this country. The right

hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench at the moment is the Minister of Education, not the Minister for Education. We have a Minister of Agriculture, not a Minister for Agriculture, as was demonstrated at Question Time today. I hope that it will remain the Ministry for Science and that its main aim will be to ensure that scientists are free to conduct their own experiments on their own lines and, when they have conducted them, the results will be available not for a limited few but for the whole of mankind so that we may all step forward with confidence into the atomic and scientific age upon which we have entered, able to exploit it for the general advantage not for national or financial ends. If we can do that, this Ministry will have a great future before it. If it provokes Government-inspired research and hinders everything else, the revolution we are inaugurating today will be a disaster, not a blessing.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. David Price: To some of the younger of us here who are connected with science, I think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) appeared to be somewhat confused. I hope that he will put off for another occasion, since I have only a few minutes, the debate which I should like to have with him about the effect of Darwin upon the fallibility of the earlier chapters of Genesis. It would be an interesting argument, and I should like to indulge in it in syllogistic form according to the proper rules of minor logic, since he took issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) on the definitions of words.
Also, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that he was talking absolutely arrant rubbish about the Government's rôle in science. Merely because we are setting up a Department for Science, nobody suggests that my noble Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education or the whole galaxy of my right hon. Friends together with their "shadows" on the Opposition Front Bench will, in fact, conduct scientific research. Of course not.
But, equally, anyone with any experience of scientific research in the modern mixed economy, which I understand both Front Benches now have nodding


approval of in spite of certain objections on the right and left of the Gaussian distribution curve—we can use scientific language—there is a rôle for the Government to promote patronage in science.
I see that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) is present. His colleagues and my scientific colleagues compete with each other for Government favour and patronage. Surely there is something perfectly honourable in Government patronage. I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, North, who takes such an interest in the fine arts and who is himself an adornment to the House, would never be reluctant to accept Government patronage.
The right hon. Member for South Shields took us back to the early debates between Kingsley and Huxley, and, with great respect to him—this may sound the arrogance of a young man—he used completely anachronistic language. Surely all of us welcome the appointment of a Minister for Science. Surely we all agree that he should be a Minister for Science and not a Minister of Science. If he were a Minister of Science that would suggest that all scientific responsibility came under one Department. Surely everyone in the Committee would agree that every Department should be imbued with the scientific spirit.
As I see it, the rôle of my right hon. and noble Friend is to provide, first, the voice of science in the Cabinet, to give science a friend at court, as it were. That is particularly so when it comes to the duties of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary as the Estimates are being made up. I have never been privy to it—one sees it only from the outside—but I guess that when a Department makes up its Estimates they are always bigger than the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to spend on them, and they are then taken back and have to be trimmed.
There are then those autumn conferences with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and civil servants whisper in the ear of the Minister which item is the most expendable. That, I suspect, is the item called research. The present Minister will not see the results in his term of office. I wonder whether he cares for his successor that much that he wants

to do well by him by having a research programme.
I hope that my right hon. and noble Friend will take the long-term view in the Cabinet when the Estimates are being discussed and will be prepared to say, "No, we will not increase this social service this year, which would make us wildly popular with the Opposition, but we will double, treble, indeed quadruple, our expenditure on fundamental research. We will not this year put up the amount of money being spent on playgrounds, but we will increase the amount being spent on space research. This should eventually result in an economy in which it would be possible to have more playgrounds for our children".
Thirdly, I see the rôle of my noble Friend as that of co-ordinator of Government policy, and hon. Members have, from their particular knowledge, already raised cases of lack of co-ordination. In the short time open to me, I will not list them, but I could list many. Fourthly, I see the rôle of my noble Friend in the nation as the public catalyst for scientific effort. Whether he will be a platinum or some other precious metal catalyst is open to the choice of hon. Members. I hope that my noble Friend will attend international scientific conferences and will speak for the nation at them.
Here, I must utter a word of warning. We do not want a Minister for Science who imagines that by virtue of his office he is a sort of amateur scientist. I hope that in the back rooms of the Cabinet my right hon. and noble Friend is not playing with his Lott's chemistry set. In my view, nothing would be more fatal than if my noble Friend started to interfere technically with scientists in their own sphere. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that in the past we have had, for instance, Secretaries of State for War who have had limited military experience and, therefore, imagined that they were better strategists than the joint chiefs of staff. I hope that my right hon. and noble Friend will not fall into that temptation.
I hope that we shall infuse into the Civil Service an understanding of science. One does not want to go to the other extreme and worship science, but an understanding of science is normal for anyone who aspires to be educated in any sense, just as an ability to speak


and write one's own language is a reasonable test of whether one is educated. I hope, for instance, that the appointment of a former Ambassador to Washington to head the Atomic Energy Authority—a proper cross-posting—will be reciprocated by a distinguished scientist, say, from the D.S.I.R., being appointed as Ambassador in Washington.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be infused by the enthusiasm of my right hon. and noble Friend and will realise that science is changing our world. There is, for example, the greater speed of communication and the new knowledge that is going round the world. I Feel that our debates in this House on foreign affairs often lack someone who can explain a little about how the world is being changed through science. I do not know whether talking about the scientific influence on international affairs makes me a sort of neo-scientific Marxist, but it is very real.
We should remember in our enthusiasm for science that our new knowledge—and I share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for South Shields for new knowledge—is itself neutral. It is neither morally good nor bad. It is only good or had as unchanging human nature makes use of it. That is our rôle in this House and, I believe, the fundamental rôle of my right hon. and noble Friend and of his Cabinet colleague—to ensure that new knowledge is used for the benefit and not the destruction of mankind. When one reflects upon the assaults that both the Russians and the Americans are making upon the vacual virginity of the moon, one may reflect, with Tennyson:
Hesper—Venus—were we native to that splendour or in Mars
We should see the Globe we groan in, fairest of their evening stars.
Could we dream of wars and carnage, craft and madness, lust and spite,
Roaring London, raving Paris, in that point of peaceful light?

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I am sorry that the debate is so short. I understand that some time is needed before 7 o'clock for the putting of certain Votes and that the Minister needs about half an hour to wind up the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that the great Shrewsbury headmaster Kennedy once

said that he devoted half a day to this subject because it was only science. Someone in the Committee has emulated the late lamented Mr. Kennedy in his appreciation of the importance of this subject.
I think that the debate has revealed two schools of thought on the appointment of a Minister for Science. One school looks upon the creation of this Ministry as a mere hang-over from matters which were discussed during the General Election, in which the party opposite made certain suggestions in its manifesto and it now feels that it is necessary to put on a show to substantiate what it said during that period.
The second school that we have heard today goes to the other extreme. It seems to believe that the issue is so important that the success or failure of the Minister will determine the future success or lack of it of British industry. Plainly, the Prime Minister belongs to the latter school, for so serious was he about the appointment that he thought it necessary to divest the noble Lord of such distracting sidelines as the chairmanship of the Tory Party so that he could concentrate on more scientific matters.
As these things are with the noble Lord, the task of having to answer to titles such as Lord Privy Seal, with its somewhat Gilbert and Sullivan flavour, and, at the same time, present himself as Minister for Science, with its atmosphere of spacemen, automation and all that, will certainly require sensitivity in the noble Lord.
Whether or not the Minister can marry those two somewhat distinctive rôles, my hon. Friends at least will agree with the Prime Minister in his reasoning that to expect the Minister for Science to carry on the alternative rôles of chairman of the Tory Party and Minister for Science would have been too incongruous a version of ancient and modern to have had any chance of ringing a bell in any section of society.
I return to a point which has been much canvassed today concerning the arrangements for answering Questions in the House of Commons. I believe that they are quite unsatisfactory. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of Education when I say that he certainly cannot hope to have the necessary qualifications for answering supplementary questions about atomic energy, the


Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and, to quote the Prime Minister on 3rd November, "general scientific matters". The right hon. Gentleman certainly has a vital rôle of his own to play in connection with the production of scientists, technologists and the like without being expected to be able to reply on detailed matters which are, and should be, purely the concern of the Ministry of Science.
I can well understand that when the Written Question appears on the Order Paper the right hon. Gentleman will be given the Written Answer. When, however, hon. Members want to pursue it in supplementary questions, one cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently fortified in his knowledge of these subjects to be able to do justice to hon. Members' supplementary questions. Therefore, I agree with hon. Members, on both sides, who have said that we obviously need representation in the House of Commons from the Department for Science. For my part, I regard it as of sufficient importance to merit a Minister of State in the Commons who can cover the whole matter from a Departmental point of view.
If we consider the position of the power programme, the percentage of coal equivalent, for instance, which will be coming from the Atomic Energy Authority is certain to become an ever-increasing proportion of our power requirements. From a reply which I have received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, I understand that by 1965, upwards of 10 million tons of coal equivalent is expected to be coming from the Atomic Energy Authority. We know that the Minister of Power is excluded from the Cabinet. He will now have to learn from the Minister of Education where he, the Minister of Power, fits in the atomic power programme with his own programme of coal, oil and other power supplies. It would almost seem as if this arrangement is designed more to hide the facts than to let the House of Commons get a good inside knowledge of what is going on.
In addition to the vital and important scientific matters covered by Departmental Ministers, I believe that from now on the House will wish to discuss

the application of science to a wide range of industries which cannot be covered in any way by departmental Ministers. This is likely to form the basis of many future debates, which, I hope, will not be as restricted as this one, either by the Motion we are discussing or by the time factor. I should have thought that if the House of Commons was to play the important rôle which it should be playing in creating in the country an atmosphere for the discussion of science, we should have a Minister from the Ministry to answer Questions to us. The task cannot simply be handed out to a Minister who happens to be free to do a sort of sideline for which he has no responsibility. That would be to treat the House in a cavalier manner and to confirm that the Government are merely window-dressing instead of getting down to a real job of work in the application of science.
Again, we learn that the Minister of Education will answer Questions concerning D.S.I.R. One of the vital issues which concerns the House of Commons is the unpublished Report of the D.S.I.R. on the machine tool industry. I quote this as an instance of the type of thing we complain about. Does the Minister of Education really feel that, with his natural concentration upon his own job as Minister of Education, he is in any way qualified to argue with Members who feel strongly about the D.S.I.R. Report on machine tools?
The Prime Minister's job is to adapt governmental institutions to the scientific age. Merely to sprinkle jobs among a veritable gaggle of Ministers, none of whom has any particular responsibility, is utterly inadequate for the nature of the problems which he will now see develop.
It is also the case that the financing of scientific activity, both fundamental and applied—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) made this point earlier—is becoming increasingly dependent upon public money. We should, therefore, as a House of Commons, recall that our main function is to demand detailed accountability wherever the spending of great sums of public money is involved.
In saying that, I do not mean that we should, as a House of Commons, seek to impede the rate of growth of science


and technology. Indeed, a clear understanding by all of us, no matter on which side of the House we sit, of the need for urgency may well be the best guarantee of progress in the battles that undoubtedly will come with the Treasury on matters of expenditure of this type. It was rather ominous that the Treasury Minister was asked to open this debate today for the Government.
The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy is to play a more important rôle than hitherto. The Minister said to his Press conference on 21st October:
I shall endeavour to rely more than ever upon the A.C.S.P. for generalised advice on question, of scientific policy. My purpose is to make the voice of science coherent and articulate under Government encouragement and in one real sense to make science self-governing under Government inspiration. For this purpose a greater use of A.C.S.P. is inevitable.
We must remember that the Advisory Council is a purely advisory body. It has no real powers of its own. It will remain to be seen whether this arrangement of a voluntary body without powers can be effective.
I remind hon. Members that, on a great many occasions, the Advisory Council has been turned down repeatedly by the noble Lord on many of its most important recommendations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), in opening the debate from this side of the Committee, reminded us of the suggestion of the Council that a national scientific reference library should be created and that that has been refused. I should have thought that as an earnest of his intention to treat the Advisory Council more seriously, the Minister for Science would now agree that that recommendation was an important one and would accede to it.
The Minister should also be encouraged in his promise to make greater use of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy in one or two ways. For instance, the report of that body has not really received all the publicity which it deserves. We are agreed on both sides of the Committee that we want the nation to be more scientific-minded about all these things, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing if the Minister for Science were to present this report itself to

Parliament, either with or without commentary of his own. That would ensure that the advice given by this body to the Government would be brought under general parliamentary review. That would be an encouragement, I think, to the members of the Council who do such a good job of work and give of their time and ability.
That report, if it were presented to us, would form the basis in the House for discussion which at present it is not possible for us to have. I hope, then, that the Minister of Education will say, when he replies to the debate, that the Government will be prepared to look at that proposal so that A.C.S.P. can have sufficient weight in the deliberations of Parliament on these very important matters.
We all know of, and, indeed, on many occasions we have debated, the shortage of scientists and technologists. I realise that the Minister of Education comes to his office with a very considerable job of work to do in creating far more opportunities for young men and women to take education in technology, science, and so on. I hope that he will be able to give us tonight some more information on what the position is at the moment.
However, it is not only a question of the numbers of the scientists and technologists we create. That is important, but it is also important that the rôle they play should not merely be a rôle of duplicating one another's work. We know that the efforts of many of them are wasted by duplication. The New Scientist of 22nd October reported that until recently five separate groups of companies interested in atomic energy carried out concurrently expensive research on the form of a large Calder Hall type of power station; they built five sets of similar apparatus and employed five groups of engineers and scientists to carry out experiments the results of which were similar. The same thing has been happening in electronics. A dozen firms employed a team of scientists to work on a transistor design.
It is not a lot of good for the Minister of Education and his colleagues to succeed in the creation of more scientists and technologists if we are to see them wasted by this rather insane duplication of effort on the same sort of thing.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree it is not always wasted effort if more than one group or team of scientists approach a problem, and that progress can come out of competition even in the scientific world.

Mr. Lee: I do not know about that. I stick to my point. In a nation in which, we are all agreed, we have a serious shortage of these people, we cannot go on having five teams duplicating one another's efforts to no particular advantage.
I go further. The noble Lord who is now Minister for Science is a lawyer, and I should have thought that one of the things he ought to have been looking at would have been the patent laws. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was discussing the question of more liberty in the application of the discoveries of science. If we are to have archaic laws which prohibit the use of scientific developments when we have got them we shall be wasting a very great deal of money in producing scientists who have to work in that kind of difficulty.
I believe that the political philosophy of the Government will be something of a stumbling block in trying to get the relationship between the Government and industry right, a point to which many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee have called attention. I believe that the Minister must establish the principle that where such large amounts of State money are involved in research we have the right to expect the maximum co-operation not only between industry and Government but between the various segments of industry which are benefiting as a result of the investment by the nation of so much of its money. I believe that the granting of Government contracts must take into account the amount of co-operation we get from industry.
Much has been said about the need for regrouping and the co-ordination of the work by the committees the control of which the noble Lord now has. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) was making the point that we really must not spread ourselves too thinly over too wide a range, and that priorities are needed to ensure that we concentrate on the most important

things. I believe we should look at certain industries, some industries whose long-term potential is out of all proportion to their present earning capacity—electronics, for instance, in its application to automation, the precision development of metallurgical and similar processes with atomic energy. These things may take a long while to develop, but I believe they are utterly vital for both our export market, and for application in this country if we are to modernise our industries. The application of electronics to automation presents very great technical and economic and social problems, but technically it requires the progressive redesign of machine tools.
I come back to the vital nature of the report we have not heard of D.S.I.R.— I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield made this point also—that Britain possesses a very great reservoir of technical skill—I should say, pro rata with population, probably the greatest reservoir of any nation in the world. Unless we are to lose much of that skill, in other words, unless it is to be qualitatively under-employed, we must press ahead with the application of science to such key industries as the ones I have mentioned during the last few minutes. When we look at this reservoir of skilled capacity with which we could lead the world, it is disgraceful that we are dependent in a large degree on imports of these very things.
I think, also, that it would be very useful if we could establish the relationship of the Minister for Science with certain of the other Departments which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement. Some Departments have their scientific staffs. What power of persuasion or of direction will the Minister have or be able to exercise in the event of disagreement if he feels that the efforts of those other Departments are inadequate? Has he any power to say that he feels that they are rather letting down the scientific effort? Can he do anything about it?
The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy has said:
If resources were unlimited it would be possible to have very large programmes in both the defence and civil fields. But, in our view, the resources devoted to civil research


and development have been, and still are, far too small for a country whose competitive position in world trade is dependent upon the economic developments of new products and new processes and where the achievements of a rising standard of living must depend mainly on our success in increasing the productivity of the labour force.
Has the Minister for Science general oversight over the allocation of scarce resources as between civil and military needs? We know that the Minister of Aviation has a big say in military matters, but has the Minister for Science any ability to intervene in these matters especially, as we say, when this may be a problem of our scarce resources being too heavily tipped in the direction of defence, with the result that other matters are falling behind?
In what way would the Minister for Science seek to influence private industrial investment in research and development? This is the nub of so much that we have been arguing today. We know that industry must go on basing itself upon the results of research and the application of that research to its industrial processes, but, again, I insist that there must be some way in which the Minister may have jurisdiction over such industries and, indeed, the power to suggest that some industries may well be failing the nation in refusing to apply methods which are known to be more modern than the ones which they are now using.
The tenth Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy estimated that about half the total number of scientists and engineers engaged on research and development were employed on defence work. Sixty per cent. of expenditure on research and development was on defence. Total expenditure on research and development was £300 million in 1955–56, which was the figure on which I questioned the Financial Secretary. That corresponded with l·6 per cent. of the gross national product compared with 1·5 per cent. in the United States. But industry's own expenditure was only £68·5 million or 0·8 per cent. of industrial output as against American industry's 1·9 per cent.
These figures suggest that there is a great deal to be done with private industry if we are to have a commensurate return for the expenditure now entailed. The aircraft industry has a good record

and we are seeing the results of a colossal expenditure of public money in this respect. I have a list of industries which I had intended to mention, but I will not do so now because of the time factor. In the aircraft industry the percentage of net output spent on research and development is 35·1 for every 354 people employed. In textiles, it is 1 per cent.; in vehicle manufacture 1·7 per cent.; in metal manufacture 1·9 per cent., and so on. These figures show a remarkable disparity throughout many British industries.
I believe that a report is pending containing more information about this. but I should be surprised if the proportion of national income devoted to research is more than 1 per cent. whereas in the United States 9,000 million dollars is spent on industrial research, or over 2 per cent. of the national income.
The occasion of this debate may well be a new departure in that we are now acknowledging that we are going into the new scientific age. I should like to feel convinced that the Government are serious in what they are doing in the creation of a Minister for Science. At the moment, I do not condemn, because I do not know. I merely say that as yet there is no reason why we should suppose that the Government are as serious about this problem as are many of us on this side of the Committee. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in opening the debate, shied off at once when he found himself discussing the relationship of the Government to private industry. But if we are serious about this, political dogma will have to go. If the Government are serious in saying that we shall place at the disposal of an ever-widening field of private enterprise vast sums of public money, we must have a better way of securing accountability to the House of the manner in which the money is expended.
I have already suggested, as have some of my hon. Friends, that one of the ways would be by having in the House a Minister of State belonging to a Ministry for Science to answer Questions. We should also have a far clearer indication of the priorities which the Government will demand of certain industries. If they give us information on those lines we shall, perhaps, have less suspicion that the Government are merely carrying


out half-heartedly one or two things which they said in the General Election they would do.
There can be no doubt of the need for an office of the Minister for Science. It should be one of the senior Departments in any Government from now on. It is so important. If we do not develop to the best of our ability scientific research and all the things that make it possible for a great industrial nation to live in the years through which we are now passing, and if the Government cannot convince us that that is being done, we shall have to come back to this subject in a much more destructively critical manner than has been apparent in the debate. I hope that the Government, having considered what has been said today, will agree with many of the suggestions which my right hon. and hon. Friends have made.

6.27 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Like the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I am very sorry that we have not had more time. I know that there are many hon. Members whose advice on the subject would be very valuable, and I hope that they will get another opportunity. The speeches that they have made fully justify the choice of science as a subject for debate by Members of the Opposition. I think that they have demonstrated more clearly than on any occasion I can recall the concern of the House of Commons that British scientific achievements should be outstanding in a world where every nation has entered the race. If I may say so, all the speeches that I have heard were excellent, but I should like especially to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), whose speech had an agreeable trace of the fact, as I understand, that he got engaged to be married today.
Science being so universally desired as a promoter of health and wealth and as a saver of labour, all modern Governments are presented with very difficult problems of policy and administration: in short, how to secure the most effective use of our scientists and the material resources they require, either directly where not one but many Government Departments are the users, or indirectly where the Government can influence the use of scientists by outside agencies and

private industry. Surely, it is this use of scarce resources which is the central problem for the new Minister for Science.
My noble Friend, I know, will be most encouraged to learn what great importance this Committee attaches to that problem. Indeed, after this debate he can have no doubt that the House of Commons welcomes the Minister for Science, wishes him well, and is therefore rightly concerned that the Minister in another place should be adequately represented in our Chamber.
It is very easy to understand the public's anxiety about the effectiveness of British science and technology. This is something more than a desire to see that our own standard of life rises as quickly as possible. We wish, too, to be in a position to help others to raise their standards, especially in the under-developed countries. We know very well that it will not be possible to tackle their economic and social problems except by the application of science, that this is the only way to narrow the gap between their way of life and ours. Here in the United Kingdom we may have a population of only 50 million, but we have inherited the honours and the responsibilities of a first-class Power, and we have no reason to resign our place to others provided that our skill and inventiveness are trained and employed to the full.
Therefore, this is a very imporant matter for the Government, as has been recognised on both sides of the Committee, and in the all-pervading realm of thought which we call science it is perhaps useful to divide the Government's responsibilities into two parts. First, there is the supply of scientific manpower. It will always be difficult to answer such questions as, have we enough scientists, technologists, technicians and craftsmen in relation to the other professions and occupations? The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) asked me if I thought the target of 20,000 scientists and technologists still stood. We shall have to look at it again, but I am glad to say that there seems to be a good chance that we shall hit the target which we set ourselves. As we get farther on, no doubt we shall be able to revise it upwards.
The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions which perhaps provide a good reason why I should reply to the debate.


For instance, he asked whether our education system is giving the right training to future scientists and to other grades of scientific manpower. The hon. Gentleman then asked about the supply of science teachers? We have not enough, but the numbers are improving in the grammar and technical schools. The latest figure for graduates in science entering university departments of education is 865 in the year 1959–60, against 639 two years ago. It is not enough, but at any rate we are moving in the right direction. The secondary modern schools are a great worry, because it is especially difficult to provide them with enough science teachers. But we are going to make a special drive in that direction.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we are encouraging science in primary schools. The answer is that we certainly are, and the recent book of suggestions to primary school teachers put out by the Ministry has a passage on the teaching of science. This is a subject which grows out of natural history, and of course a great deal can be done by ensuring that the primary school libraries include books dealing with science which are interesting to young children. The idea is to create in them a curiosity and a desire to inquire into natural causes. This we will do.
Of course, we need more women teachers in science. There again the position is a little better, but not as good as we would like. There is something of a vicious circle here: until we get more teachers of science for the sixth forms in the girls' grammar schools, it is not easy to get girls who will train to become teachers. I am hopeful that little by little this will improve.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked about specialisation in the top classes of secondary schools. I ask him to wait for the Crowther Report, which will deal thoroughly with this subject. I fear that if I gave the hon. Gentleman my views tonight I should be anticipating the Council's recommendations. It is important that the curriculum should not get so jammed with new subjects that we lose the proper balance which ought to exist between the two great disciplines.
In the matter of scientific manpower, my noble Friend will collect and coordinate all the relevant views on these controversial issues. He will then place his conclusions before the education

departments, the universities, the other scientific bodies, industry and all others who are concerned in this matter. I have no doubt that this will do us all good. Indeed, speaking as Minister of Education for England and Wales, I shall be very glad indeed when my noble Friend's urgent eloquence is ringing in the ears of my Department and of the local authorities who are responsible for the technical colleges.
The other great sector of scientific policy which concerns the Government, and which has been mentioned in the debate, is how best to use the trained manpower and material resources we have available. Here my noble Friend has a responsibility which is as complex as it is important. He will be in a better position than any other Minister or agency to form estimates of our scientific resources and requirements and therefore he will be a most influential counsellor on how best these resources can be used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and other speakers today have said that it is not possible for any one nation, however large and advanced it may be, to pursue all possible lines in research and development. For instance, in Russia one finds that the gaps in Soviet production of civilian goods are just as obvious as the successes they have scored in the field of defence. In the United Kingdom we may think that our priorities are better balanced than they are in Russia, but at the same time we are bound to be in front in one direction and behind in another. We have a noble tradition of academic freedom which perhaps gives a somewhat haphazard appearance to the great achievement we have made in pure science and research.
The Liberal Party is not represented here this afternoon, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) amply stood in its shoes and gave us an excellent and heart-warming speech on the value of academic freedom. We also have a strong belief in freedom of choice for the individual consumer, and that determines to a great extent how much of the application of science shall go to one industry or another. In the export field, it is essential to produce the goods which our overseas customers want to buy.
My noble Friend cannot therefore be a Minister "of" Science; he is not going to give directions where freedom to educate, and freedom to buy and sell, has given such great strength to our economy, on which we must rely as a great exporting nation. He is a Minister "for" Science, by which it should be understood that co-ordination, encouragement and assistance will be the methods he will use. At the same time he has at his elbow a wide variety of agencies through which he can make the influence of the Government felt in the choice of projects for scientific investigation and research. For example, my noble Friend is responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority and for the four great research councils which between them, as the Financial Secretary told the Committee, control the spending of a great deal of public money.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, to which reference was made, gives larger numbers of research grants; I think it has made 289 awards this year, to the value of £2¾ million. The D.S.I.R., as well as the N.R.D.C., give development grants. Certainly we have no objection on principle to these agencies giving help in this way. I doubt whether our computers would be as far on as they are if development contracts had not been given by the National Research and Development Corporation.
Research contracts were specially mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), and some hon. Members have asked about the provision of more money for research students. I think that the Government agencies give such grants already. It is a matter of the total funds at their disposal, and the way in which they use them. However, I will bring that point to the attention of my noble Friend.

Mrs. Eirene White: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the last year the National Research Development Corporation spent less than £250,000 on development contracts? Is that anything like adequate?

Sir D. Eccles: I saw the work of the Corporation a great deal when I was at the Board of Trade, because it comes

under that Department. There has been a slight change in its organisation and it was considering which way to go, but it was given more money by this House and it is now in a position to take on further work. It has practically spent up to the hilt of its previous allocation. The N.R.D.C. and the D.S.I.R. have a joint committee, so that there is no duplication in their work.
There is also the A.C.S.P., to which the hon. Member for Newton referred. Its report is presented to Parliament each year, and one will be presented within a very few days now.
I should like particularly to say a word about the Atomic Energy Authority, because it was mentioned once or twice. At the present time the two main tasks of the Atomic Energy Authority are the development of atomic warheads and the development of reactors for power production. The first is carried out for the Ministry of Aviation and concerns defence and foreign policy. The second brings in a whole number of Departments—the Ministry of Power for electricity, the Ministry of Transport for merchant shipping and the Admiralty for submarines.
The development of these reactors is now so recondite and expensive that it has become an international business, and we in our programme must pay attention, since we are a nation that lives by trade, to the commercial prospects of reactors. That is why we are still waiting to be told by the scientists which form of marine reactor is most likely to be a commercial success.
What I have said about the Atomic Energy Authority shows that the work of the Minister for Science embraces the activities of various Departments. It is therefore a considerable administrative problem to relate my noble Friend's responsibilities to the day-to-day work of the other Departments and also to represent them adequately in the House. I will return to the latter point in a moment after saying a word about another subject which was raised, namely, what my noble Friend intends to do in order to stimulate research in private industry.
I suppose that in that field there is a rough division between industries which are dominated by a few big firms and industries in which the units are many and, on average, small. The aviation industry, the chemical industry and the


heavy electrical engineering industry have giant units and very good departments of research and development. On the other hand, we have industries—major industries like agriculture and building—which have never done very much research and where the Government have had to put up most of the money. In the middle we have manufacturing industry, where the pattern is very varied. We have some firms like the Rolls Royce Company, which has no equal in the world in the research and development which it carries out.
At the other end of engineering, we have many thousands of small firms who have neither the manpower nor the cash to do much research. There are also industries such as the machine tool industry where some units are large but where there is a widespread feeling that not enough research has been done.
The machine tool industry has been mentioned, and I should therefore like to explain what is going on. It is commonly said that not enough research is being done. No detailed charges have been laid, but the criticism was very insistent, so the first thing was to find out the facts. The D.S.I.R. was therefore asked to make an inquiry. If the information which it wished to gain was to be complete, it obviously had to be confidential. Accordingly, it secured the full co-operation of forty of the leading firms in the machine tool industry by letting them know that the report of its inquiry would not be published. I know that this does not satisfy some hon. Gentlemen opposite. They would like to have the report published in order to see where, and to what extent, the industry had been backward.
However, that misses the point of our inquiry. Our inquiry was set up so that a Government agency might help the industry by making useful recommendations designed to score further successes in the home market and in exports. We are not interested in just revealing the failures of the past. We are interested in finding out how to do better in the future.

Mr. J. T. Price: That does not seem to be a very scientific approach to the question. If we are dealing with science, let us talk in terms of science. If one makes an inquiry about anything, it is obviously an attempt

to get at the truth, and if we cannot know what the truth is, how can we make recommendations for improving the situation in the future? Many of us on this side of the Committee are very dissatisfied about the Government's attitude to the machine tool industry.

Sir D. Eccles: When dealing with an individual industry, the information can best be obtained confidentially, since it is necessary to have their co-operation afterwards to put things right. If what hon. Members are interested in is simply putting an industry in the dock, that is something different, and it is not what we were after. The report is now being discussed with the industry, and I can assure the Committee that action is likely to follow.

Mr. Lee: Is not the case rather that because no report has been issued the suspicion is that the report must be bad? If a report could be issued, the right hon. Gentleman might remove that suspicion.

Sir D. Eccles: I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take it from me that the information was collected on an undertaking that it would not be published. If that undertaking had not been given, nothing like so much information would have been collected.
My noble Friend has the D.S.I.R. at his hand in order to discover other gaps where they exist in industry, and he will do this. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, we are fortunate that Professor Carter has accepted a post on the D.S.I.R. Council. He is a professional economist. He is now, therefore, in charge of the Economic Committee in place of Professor Austin Robinson, and we very much look forward to the results of his work.
I have tried to give some idea of the range of the new Minister's responsibilities. How, then, are these activities, which directly affect so many Departments, to be adequately represented in this House? Almost every Department of State has something to do with science. I mention only the outstanding examples—Defence, Aviation, Board of Trade, Transport. Power. Agriculture, Health and Education.
It seemed to be for the convenience of hon. Members that where a Parliamentary question addressed to the


Minister for Science directly concerned a particular Minister, that Minister should give the answer—in other words, the Minister of Aviation for atomic weapons, the Minister of Transport for reactors in merchant ships, the Minister of Power for the electricity programme, and the Minister of Health for all the relations between science and health and so on—and that for matters not clearly the concern of a particular Department the Minister of Education should generally represent the Minister for Science.
I think that the Prime Minister had in mind three reasons for selecting the Minister of Education for this residual duty. The first was that he thought that the House of Commons would wish a member of the Cabinet to represent the Minister for Science. Secondly, my Ministry is responsible for the schools and technical colleges. As we have heard in the debate today in questions addressed to me from the benches opposite, this is a very important part of the whole field of science. Thirdly, when I was Minister of Works, I represented Lord Salisbury, who was then Lord President of the Council and I answered for atomic energy. In those days I had more to answer because it was before the Atomic Energy Authority was set up. I was also answering for the D.S.I.R. and on other scientific questions.
I fully realise that it is a very difficult job to master the business of the Minister for Science and that I may appear to be inadequate. All I can say to the Committee is that I will do my best. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will study all that has been said in the debate today about the representation of the Minister for Science in this House. It is certainly his desire to provide the House with the best possible means of being apprised of the actions and policies of my noble Friend. I am sure that it will be a great satisfaction to the Prime Minister and my noble Fried to learn from this debate how important the Committee feels the appointment of the new Minister to be. In fact, I think that it has been generally agreed that he has been entrusted with a task of the greatest national importance. I do not think that some of the remarks about my noble Friend will ring very true. I certainly do not think that he is

likely to creep—I have watched him for a long time—or to be the subject of window-dressing. I think that my noble Friend can be trusted to act in a vigorous manner.
I hope that the debate has shown that the appointment of a Minister for Science has inevitably created some very awkward administrative problems for the Government. That is inescapable because science is so pervading. None the less, I think that the Committee will agree that administrative difficulties can nearly always be settled with good will and solutions found for all conundrums of interdepartmental responsibility. That we must try to do, and we certainly intend that the new Minister should succeed in his difficult but important task.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That a sum, not exceeding £4,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Science.

VOTE 7. ATOMIC ENERGY

Resolved.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Atomic Energy Office and for payments to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in respect of expenses in connection with the supply of atomic energy and radioactive substances, including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto, and for subscriptions to international organisations.

CLASS I

VOTE 4. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, the additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the salaries and other expenses of his office arising from his responsibility for the co-ordination of official information, and the salary and expenses of the Minister without Portfolio.

VOTE 5A. PRIVY SEAL OFFICE

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,650, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

CLASS VI

VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aviation for the administration of supply (including research and development, production, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); for administrative services in connection with civil aviation (including the salaries and expenses of the Air Transport Advisory Council) and the aircraft, light metals and electronics industries; and for miscellaneous services.

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,110, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including the salaries and expenses of the Coastguard, the Transport Tribunal, the Air Transport Advisory Council, and the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Committee, subscriptions to international organisations, and sundry other services.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE

WAR OFFICE (SUPPLY)

Resolved,
.That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses incurred by the War Office for the administration of supply (including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); and for miscellaneous services.

WAR OFFICE (PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

RACIAL INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION

6.57 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move,
That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act on all occasions, particularly at the United Nations, in a manner wholly consistent with this declaration.
The theme of what I have to say is a simple one. The human race is one family and it is in the interest of all of us that anything which divides us should be frowned upon. Race and colour are two of the elements which divide us more than almost any other characteristics. Therefore, efforts should continually be made to overcome the divisive effects of race and colour. It is for that reason that we have tabled a Motion which declares in the strongest possible terms our disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination, for to take action against men and women purely on the ground of their colour is wicked. We should say so and we should act accordingly.
We are not satisfied with the actions of the Government on this matter over the last few years. Certainly, within the last few months they have not given the confidence which they should do to mankind as a whole that they intend to act in accordance with the principle which, I believe, will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people of these islands.
We wish to be clear where the Government stand on this matter, for very shortly the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary are to set forth on journeys, throughout the whole of Africa, which may have very great repercussions on our future policy in that continent, and we wish them well. We believe that the Motion provides an opportunity for the Government to make their position clear. That is why I very much regret that they have thought fit to put down an Amendment in the terms they have. I shall return to that in due course.
The Government have recently had an opportunity of declaring themselves on the broad, simple principle that I have outlined, and, as in previous years, they

have declined to take that opportunity. Last month, the Political Committee of the United Nations had in front of it a motion reading as follows:
The General Assembly … is deeply convinced that the practice of racial discrimination and segregation is opposed to the observances of human rights and freedoms, considering that Governmental policies which accentuate or seek to preserve racial discrimination are prejudicial to international harmony, notes with concern that the policy of apartheid is still being pursued. … Expresses its opposition to the continuance or preservation of racial discrimination in any part of the world. … Expresses its deep regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to appeals of the General Assembly that it reconsider governmental policy which impairs the rights of all racial groups to enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms.
We voted against that motion, and I very much regret that that vote was passed in our name. I understand that we voted against it on the ground that it was a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of the South African Government and that the Charter of the United Nations, in Article II (7), says:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. …
We have not yet had from the United Nations the transcript of the speech of our delegate on this occasion, but the transcript of the speech of our delegate setting out the reason for his voting against a similar motion last year is contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th November, 1958, and I take it that the reasons for our vote this year are probably the same as they were last year. Our delegate then said:
The United Kingdom Delegation will vote against the Resolution before the Committee. It follows from what I have said that in so doing we are not expressing any opinion on the internal policies of the Union of South Africa. The United Kingdom vote has one meaning only. It is a vote in defence of the United Nations Charter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 843.]
Words can be made to mean many things, but to use that language in defence of the United Nations Charter seems worthy of Sir John Simon at his best at the time of the trouble in Manchuria.
There is not even agreement among international authorities that this is, in


essence, a domestic matter. I understand that the latest edition of Oppenheim's "International Law" states clearly that the rule that a State can treat its subjects according to its discretion is subject to its international obligations and, in particular, the general obligations of the Charter of the United Nations relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United Nations resolution, which I have just read, called upon all member States, and not just South Africa, to conform with their Charter obligations and to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In the vote that was taken on the motion, 66 nations voted for it, seven abstained, and two others—France and Portugal—voted, with Britain, against it. I tell the Government that this is a shocking position to be in. They do not even do themselves justice. After all, both this and the previous Tory Governments can claim to have led many people forward to self-government and the fulfilment of their rights, but on this occasion we have allowed ourselves to be put into a position where we are in company with only two other colonial Powers in defence of a situation that is repugnant and intolerable to the overwhelming majority of our people.
That is not the end of the matter. We have not been consistent in our actions. I can understand the Government standing upon the line that this is essentially a domestic matter—although I disagree with them on that—and, therefore, they do not record their view and express an opinion, but there are other cases where they have recorded their views and expressed their opinion in the current session of the United Nations. In the case of Tibet, just six weeks ago a resolution was passed urging respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people. Sir Pierson Dixon, on our behalf, emphasised the importance which the British Government attached to Article II (7) and explained that it was for that reason alone that he could not support the motion. He was giving the umbrella of his consent to what was being done, while standing on the terms of the Article in question.
There was another example just ten days ago, concerning Hungary. In view of Sir Leslie Munro's reports of the reign of terror there, just ten days ago the

Steering Committee agreed to put the question of Hungary upon the agenda. Is the internal reign of terror in Hungary a matter of domestic jurisdiction? I should have thought that it might have been added to that category by a Government who say that apartheid is a matter of internal jurisdiction. On this occasion, however, the United Kingdom delegate supported the motion.
This means that in three special cases we have voted differently. In the case of Hungary we supported the motion to place the matter on the agenda; in the case of Tibet we said that we could not support the motion put forward, on the ground, and only on the ground, that it was a matter of internal jurisdiction; and in the case of South Africa and the question of apartheid we voted against a similar motion.
The other day the Prime Minister criticised the action of the Opposition in raising this matter and said that it would divide the Commonwealth. It is not the discussion of this matter which divides the Commonwealth; what divides the Commonwealth is the policy being pursued by one of its fellow members. We have only to look at the record of the voting on the most recent motion. Canada abstained; Australia did not vote, and Malaya, Ghana, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Ceylon voted for the motion. Britain voted against it. That is where the division of the Commonwealth takes place.
Let us be clear about it; this policy of racial discrimination and intolerance is dividing the Commonwealth more than any other subject under discussion in the world today. It is dividing it even more than the cold war. It is well known that there are a number of the poorer, under-developed nations in the world which believe that the cold war is a luxury which can be practised by the rich and advanced nations, but it has not much of a message for them. They are divided on that issue, but, if there is one thing which unites the under-developed territories, the poorer territories, the Asians and the Africans and the South American States, it is this question of racial discrimination. And Britain is standing against them—or appearing to stand against them, because I do not believe that the British Government are in that position.


But they really must make their position clear. They really must state where they stand, and this debate provides an opportunity for them to do so.
In my view, we have reached a very sorry position where the actions of one member of the Commonwealth are leading people to claim that it would be an advantage if that member were to leave the Commonwealth. Spontaneous boycotts are being organised against the products of that member of the Commonwealth. I am told that it is embarrassing for us to move this Motion tonight, because the Prime Minister is shortly to visit this member country of the Commonwealth. It is no use pushing this sort of thing under the rug. If public opinion has reached the stage where spontaneous boycotts are organised because of a policy which is being followed, that should be debated in this Chamber. We should understand what, in fact, is at stake.
What is happening is that the effect of the cumulation of measures by the South African Government has led to resentment being felt among other members of the Commonwealth and many other nations in the world, especially the under-developed ones, and it is in these circumstances that the Prime Minister is proposing to visit South Africa. He has been invited there by the leaders of that country, although I have no doubt that he will be welcomed by everyone, as much by those who oppose the Government as by those who support it.
The right hon. Gentleman has to make clear where he stands when he visits South Africa, for there are many people in that country—most people—who, although they may not have votes, do not support the policy being followed by the South African Government. We must ask the Prime Minister—I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here tonight—when he goes there, to state, courteously but firmly, his view about this fundamental question. I do not know whether he intends to talk or to listen. The reports from Durban seem to indicate that he may think he is going to talk, but they think that he is coming to listen.
Die Transvaler, of which Dr. Verwoerd is chairman of the board of directors,

says it is important that Mr. Macmillan should hear from Dr. Verwoerd himself why it is the object of the Nationalist Party to make the Union a republic. It seems to me that the speaking will not all be on one side. I have a feeling that the Prime Minister is to be subjected by the Prime Minister of South Africa to a very detailed explanation of what it is that he has in mind. As the Natal Mercury says, the invitation is from a Prime Minister who
is the architect of a plan to break up a Union which British statesmanship can claim to be one of its finest achievements; whose avowed republican intentions would have put him out of court in any comity of nations other than the Commonwealth for which he professes no great love.
Those are not my words, they are the words of an English-speaking South African newspaper. I wonder who, in this case, is to take the ride on the tiger —which is the tiger and which is the young lady? It may well be that the Prime Minister, when he gets there, will find himself faced with urgent explanations about the necessity for a republic and, secondly, with a demand for control of the Protectorates by South Africa. This is a long-established demand on their part.
The question I wish to ask the Government this evening is this: will they please repeat the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) about British status over the Protectorates? I will remind the House of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman on 13th April, 1954, when he was Prime Minister:
There can be no question of Her Majesty's Government agreeing at the present time to the transfer of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland to the Union of South Africa. We are pledged, since the South African Act of 1909, not to transfer these territories until their inhabitants have been consulted and until the United Kingdom Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1954; Vol. 526. c. 966.]

Mr. Bernard Braine: That is not in dispute.

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to hear that it is not in dispute. I hope it is not. I am asking that, five years later, there should be a definite reaffirmation of this pledge, so that when he visits South Africa the Prime Minister will know that he is reinforced by the whole body of


opinion in this House and in the country. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity of so saying this evening.
If the Prime Minister accepts the hospitality of the South African Government during the next few months, and says nothing about this question, his visit will do great damage to Britain in the eyes of millions of Africans. That is why I said the other day that the very visit means that the right hon. Gentleman will take up an attitude—he must do so. He cannot act with the irresponsibility of a field marshal. He cannot go there and he carried round the country and not meet any of the African political or trade union leaders, not see any of the African territories or any of the work which has been done, and then come back with a defence of the South African Government.
The right hon. Gentleman is in a responsible position. As Miss Perham pointed out in a remarkable letter in The Times last week, this is not a private enterprise venture on which the Prime Minister is engaged. This is a matter in which there are very great hazards. The Prime Minister is a master of the art of propaganda. We saw the way in which he used President Eisenhower when he was in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] By all accounts it was the most successful political party broadcast of them all. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should take exception to what I say. I hope that the Prime Minister will not find himself used by Dr. Malan—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is dead."]—Dr. Verwoerd, in much the same way as the right hon. Gentleman used, successfully used, President Eisenhower.
We have been told that, of course, the Prime Minister is entitled to go to South Africa, that were it to be argued that he is not, he could not visit the U.S.S.R. But is that argument quite on all fours? Does anybody really have any doubt about where the Prime Minister stands on the question of Communism? Or upon events in Hungary? But where does he stand on the question of apartheid? That is the question I want to ask. That is the question which is being asked, and will be asked increasingly loudly by Africa and by the territories through which the Prime Minister will pass.
I absolutely agree with the visit. By all means let the Prime Minister visit South Africa, but let him make quite clear that we in this country—we are speaking for the overwhelming number of people in this country—view the policy being followed there with repugnance. The right hon. Gentleman can say that as politely, courteously, wisely and sagely as he likes, and as we all know he can speak. I do not mind how he says it, but he ought to say it.
If he does so, the right hon. Gentleman will not only be speaking for us in this country. He will be speaking for the Commonwealth. He will be speaking for Asia and for Africa. That is not a bad audience to have and not a bad volume of support to command. If he does not, if he remains silent, I say that his silence will be misinterpreted and Britain will be put unnecessarily in a false position.
The reason why I do not accept that this is a domestic matter is that there is a danger of infection in Central Africa. When I have talked to leaders in Central Africa and further north, I have always felt that one of the reasons why they press us relentlessly for self-government so quickly is that they fear the policies of the Afrikaans in South Africa will be riveted on them. In Nyasaland, time after time we have heard that they want to be in a position before 1960 in which they can determine their own future because they do not want this type of racial policy following them into Nyasaland. That is why, basically, this is not a matter of domestic jurisdiction. It has its repercussions throughout so many territories. Therefore, it seems in the interests of the British Government if, as I believe, they wish to get a solution in Kenya and other Central African Territories, to dissociate themselves from the policies which are being followed in South Africa.
I do not know whether hon. Members read a very remarkable article in the Observer yesterday by Mr. William Clark. He said in the course of that article that a British visitor to the United Nations could not fail to speculate on the gap in leadership which might be filled by Britain:
a Great Power whose interests more and more clearly coincide with those of the great majority of smaller nations in the world —there is an enormous fund of good will for the Power which created independent nations


in India, West Africa and Malaya. Yet at present Britain forfeits the right to lead (and the lesser Powers lack alternative leadership) because the United Kingdom finds it necessary on almost every occasion to vote in the tiny minority of pro-colonialist Powers.
He might have said the infinitesimal minority of colonialist powers. He went on:
Is it necessary or prudent for Britain to choose to support South Africa and lose the support of the civilised world? Is there any sense in the nation which above all has brought its colonies forward to self-government putting itself in the position of supporting a reactionary racial policy that has earned world-wide condemnation? Whatever Britain may do, the United Nations Assembly will increase its power, the smaller Powers will develop their influence in the world's councils. However, if Britain chooses she may become the national leader and organiser of the majority in the Assembly. It would be a satisfying, noble and rewarding rôle for us to play.
I say amen to that. I believe that Britain has a great rôle, not only in uniting the Commonwealth on these issues, but also in giving leadership to a great many nations outside the Commonwealth, in the United Nations. I should very much like to see us step into that rôle in the United Nations.
Let us get away from this sort of halfhearted policy. Let us try to give some bold leadership in a matter like this instead of relying upon what I must describe as legal pedantry and hypocrisy in defence of refusing to vote for the resolution on this issue. I do not wish to charge the Foreign Secretary with hypocrisy, but how can be explain giving his reasons about Tibet and saying he is in favour of what is being done, how can he sustain a vote on Hungary and yet withdraw his skirts when it comes to the question of South Africa, especially when there is no question whether we should have united the Commonwealth behind us and we have the responsibility for so doing?
Because this is a general Motion, I should like to say another word about racial intolerance and discrimination at home. We have seen it at Nottingham and at Notting Hill. I do not believe the Government have done nearly enough to deal with the roots of racial intolerance and discrimination in this country. We need a tremendous campaign of education. We need more. Hand in hand with education, we need

legislation. We should have legislation in this country that would prohibit and make illegal discrimination in any public place. If the Government will introduce such legislation, I can give them the assurance that we shall support it in principle. We shall make no mischief about it. We believe it is so vital for future good relationships between our peoples to see such legislation on the Statute Book that, although naturally we would want to examine the details, in principle we would support such a Measure if the Government brought it forward.
When I look at the Amendment to be moved by the Government, I wonder why they want to move an Amendment. What is wrong with the words in the Motion:
That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination."?
The Government want us to leave that out. I could have understood it if they said the Opposition had not recognised all they were doing and that they wanted to add something to the Motion in order to congratulate them. Perhaps that might have been discussed. Can we be told why the Government want to leave that out and to go on record as promoting their efforts to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination? If they ask us to leave this out, it is either complete muddle-headedness on their part or there is a more sinister reason. Which is it? On the whole, I believe Ministers are more incompetent than malignant. I would give them the benefit of the doubt; but how do they think anyone else is going to give them the benefit of the doubt about this?
We are asking for a simple declaration, and they cannot bring themselves to ask their followers to go into the Lobby in support of it. This will not do. We simply cannot agree that our Motion should be amended in this way. If hon. Members opposite were to consult their own private views and not their Whips, they would probably agree with us.
This Motion was put on the Order Paper in a declaratory way with the object of allowing the Government to state their position. I ask the Government to reconsider the form of their Amendment and, if they wish, let them include in their proposed Amendment that they declare very strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination.


Perhaps we could come to agreement on that. If they do not, they stand condemned, and we shall not hesitate to condemn them. They have the opportunity. This is not a mere form of words. They have the opportunity of amending the Motion now and allowing the record to be put straight. I warn hon. Members opposite that these events are watched extremely closely in Africa. Every word is examined. The whole sequence of events is examined. Even things which we here know are not connected with the problem are in their minds connected. It is in the interest of Britain that the Government should go on record in support of this Motion.
I ask the House to support the Motion. As to the Amendment, I cannot say that I approve of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government. Their attitude in the United Nations in relation to the disputes I have outlined is not one of which I could approve. I do not believe that at home they have taken the steps they should have taken against racial intolerance and discrimination. I cannot, therefore, ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Government's Amendment as it stands now, but let the Government make us an offer during the course of the debate. Let us see whether some agreement may not be reached so that when the Prime Minister goes to Africa he may go with the support of a united House and a united country, as undoubtedly he would, declaring this fierce opposition to a doctrine that is immoral, and a policy that, if pursued, will lead the Commonwealth to disruption.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to second the Motion.

7.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and nondiscrimination by all means within their power".
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this debate gave us an opportunity to make our position clear on the subject of racial intolerance and discrimination, and we naturally welcome this opportunity to

do so. The whole subject of racial intolerance and discrimination has many ramifications, as has been indicated in the speech to which we have just listened. Some aspects of the matter can be more appropriately taken up by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations when he speaks later in the debate.
The Motion moved by the Opposition makes special reference to the actions of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations, and, indeed, this aspect received considerable attention in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I propose, therefore, to deal with it now.
I would say, in passing, that I think this problem of certain items at the United Nations has been a difficult one for successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative. I was looking up today some of the things that the Labour Government have done on this kind of item at the United Nations, and, no doubt, the hon. Member will recollect the item which continually has been before the United Nations on the treatment of Indians in South Africa. When I looked at the White Paper issued by the Labour Government describing their activities at the United Nations, I came across these phrases on the treatment of persons of Indian race in the Union of South Africa. This is the item:
The United Kingdom Delegation declined to enter into a discussion on the merits of this dispute. As a result of this, the United Kingdom Delegation were criticised by the Indian Delegation for supporting what the latter termed the racial discrimination policy of the South African Government.
The Labour Party's White Paper goes on to say:
The discussions were influenced more by emotional and political appeals than by legal arguments.
Having been at the United Nations, I have some sympathy with that statement in the Labour Government's White Paper. I say this having had to deal with the actions of the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations this year and in previous years.
It has been alleged in this House, and, indeed, was alleged by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, that the United Kingdom has acted at the United Nations General Assembly in a way which conflicts with our declared policy on racial matters. It is said that we have by our


vote indicated our support for policies of racial discrimination, and it is suggested that we should have cast our vote in a different way, or that we should have used the opportunity presented by these United Nations debates to express certain views about race relations.
Her Majesty's Government's policy on such matters has been stated in this House on a number of occasions, but I shall state it again now in order to clear away the confusion which still appears to exist.
Hon. Members no doubt know that an item on the racial policy of the Government of South Africa has been put on the General Assembly's agenda at each Session since 1952. Our attitude has always been that these resolutions are outside the competence of the General Assembly.
I must emphasise that our attitude is based entirely on this consideration, and I may say that the same Article was frequently referred to by Members of the Labour Party when they were present as representing Great Britain at the United Nations. As hon. Members are aware, the competence of the Assembly is limited by Article II (7) of the United Nations Charter, which says:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.…
The provision which I have just quoted clearly has no meaning unless the effect of it is that when a matter is essentially one of domestic jurisdiction, its formal consideration by the United Nations is excluded, even if some kindred matter is mentioned in other provisions of the Charter. I do not propose to burden the House with a long exposition of this legal question.

Mr. Charles Royle: Before the Minister of State leaves that point, would he tell us why the Government changed their mind, abstaining up to 1957, and voting against the resolution for the first time in 1958, and then again in 1959?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course, the item has been the same year after year, but the resolutions have varied very considerably from year to year. There are sometimes as many as seven resolutions on a particular item, and the vote on any resolution has to be taken in the light of

the wording of the resolution in any particular year.
The point I was about to make is that the relationship which a country has decided, rightly or wrongly, to maintain between persons of varying races living within its own borders is, in the absence of treaty obligations, a matter essentially of domestic jurisdiction. This was no doubt the reason why the Labour Government consistently abstained on the item about Indians in South Africa. We therefore reject the argument which has been advanced in connection with Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. These Articles deal with co-operation in the promotion by the United Nations of a number of general objectives—higher standards of living, full employment and several others including universal respect for human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. These Articles do not pretend to remove from the domestic field the internal policies of Governments on any of these matters.
It is precisely for these reasons, therefore, that we voted again this year, as we have done in the past, against the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the question of race conflict in the Union of South Africa. The decision to vote in this way was taken for the fundamental legal reason which I have stated. It was a decision reached independently of other considerations, such as whether other countries might cast similar votes. Certainly, the United Kingdom vote ought not to be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the substance of the resolution, because we believe that it would be wrong for us to express any opinion in the General Assembly on a matter which is outside the competence of the United Nations.
Here, I should like to quote from the statement made by the United Kingdom representative in the Special Political Committee on 9th November, a statement which he made on my instructions. These are the words which the hon. Member said he had not yet seen. After explaining that the United Kingdom would vote against the resolution because it contravened Article II (7) of the Charter, he said:
I would not want our attitude to be misunderstood. This does not mean that we are not in agreement with many of the sentiments expressed in the resolution. For instance, the universal proposition advanced in the first operative paragraph,"—


which dealt with the observance of human rights—
is one with which we have, on our record, always been associated. In the territories for which my Government are responsible, our policies are, we believe, clear and unequivocal. We are helping the people of those territories to move to nationhood in freedom, regardless of race, colour and creed.

Hon. Members: Nyasaland.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Hon. Members should not start to shout like that. If we want that sort of debate, there are many instances with regard to Tshekedi and Seretse Khama which we could introduce.
I will continue the quotation for the hon. Member:
We are, therefore, committed to the progressive removal of any remaining restrictions based upon race as soon as this may be practicable. In the appropriate place and at the appropriate time my delegation has made this policy clear many times in the United Nations".
I wish to quote one more passage from the speech of the United Kingdom representative:
Whatever the intrinsic rights and wrongs may be in this dispute … the fact remains that seven years of discussion in the United Nations, and the passing of many resolutions, do not seem to have brought us any nearer to resolving it. In the view of my delegation, this is clear proof that whatever the inclination of a majority of its members may be, the United Nations can take no effective action in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. This being so, surely the United Nations can only lose prestige, if it persists in trying to follow courses which eventually lead to nowhere?
I draw particular attention to those final words, because I think they indicate why we consider it was wise to include in the Charter of the United Nations a provision such as that contained in Article II (7). If the United Nations were allowed on any and every occasion to pass judgment upon the internal policies of member States, I believe that it would be subjected to intolerable strain and would rapidly become ineffective as an organisation for promoting co-operation and conciliation throughout the world.
I shall digress briefly to mention another matter which is raised at the United Nations; that is the question of South West Africa. This year we felt obliged to oppose two of the seven resolutions put forward on this subject. I am surprised that it has been alleged in the House on a previous occasion that

our opposition to these resolutions on South West Africa implied, in some way, support for policies of racial discrimination. The two questions are quite separate and distinct from one another. We have been guided throughout the long series of debates on South West Africa at the United Nations— incidentally, hon. Members will recollect that the Labour Government voted in favour of the incorporation of South West Africa in the Union of South Africa —by the conviction—

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister of State is giving a series of very incomplete analyses of what has happened. Will he refer to the occasion at the 322nd Plenary Meeting on 13th December, 1950, when a motion was passed urging South Africa to give effect to the opinion of the International Court of Justice on South West Africa, including sending reports? The United Kingdom voted for that motion. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to refer to that to fill out the analyses?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Gentleman has not yet heard what I have to say about South West Africa. I was just going on to tell him of the way in which we have conducted the debate on South West Africa in recent years. We recognise that it is an extremely difficult problem, and we believe that a solution which will assist the progress and wellbeing of the inhabitants of the territory can be found only through securing the co-operation of the South African Government as the government which, in fact, administer the territory. It is clear that this co-operation can be secured only through negotiations between the United Nations and the Union of South Africa. It is therefore essential to strive to find a mutually acceptable basis for negotiation and to preserve an atmosphere favourable for that purpose.
In our view, the substance and language of two of the draft resolutions on South West Africa would tend to diminish, rather than improve, the prospects of negotiations. It was for this reason that the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations voted against the resolutions. I can say categorically that the voting on these two resolutions on the question of South West Africa is a separate matter


altogether unconnected with the question of South African racial affairs.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that our votes on these kinds of items were inconsistent with our votes on topics such as Hungary and Tibet. I believe that it is absurd to suggest that the attitude which the United Kingdom has maintained towards the consideration by the United Nations of the situation in Hungary is evidence of inconsistency. The two cases are totally and fundamentally different. In the case of Hungary in 1956, we were concerned with the armed intervention by a foreign power in the affairs of the sovereign State of Hungary, and of the continuing threat of armed intervention. This intervention was contrary to the wishes of the constitutional Government of Hungary at that time. It is quite fantastic to try to draw a parallel between that topic and the question of racial discrimination in South Africa.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting point. There may indeed be something in what he says about 1956, but that is not what he was challenged with. He was challenged with the vote in 1959, not in 1956. The vote in 1959 was not concerned with the Russian troops in Hungary but with internal administration and what was held to be—in my opinion, rightly—a conflict between those actions and that administration and the International Declaration of Human Rights. I am not saying that the Government were wrong to vote as they did in the case of Hungary, but what is the distinction between that vote and the vote on South Africa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already described to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East the reasons why the item on Hungary came on the agenda of the United Nations and why we voted in favour of it. A vote on any resolution on Hungary has not yet arisen this year, but it is a fact that the United Nations, as a result of events in 1956, set up machinery, through the appointment of a United Nations Representative, to inquire into what had happened in Hungary, including the armed intervention. We believe that there is still a reason for the Representative of the

United Nations to visit Hungary and see whether there is a continuance of the threat of armed intervention in Hungary.

Mr. Callaghan: It is all very well for the Minister of State to say that, but there has been a vote on Hungary.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not on a resolution.

Mr. Callaghan: No, not on a resolution, but there has been a vote on Hungary this year. On 23rd November, the Steering Committee agreed to add Hungary to the agenda, in view of Sir Leslie Munro's report of the reign of terror in Hungary. That was carried by fifteen votes to three, with two abstentions. The United Kingdom delegate's vote was one of the fifteen.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is absolutely true. There was a vote to put the item on the agenda of the United Nations. The hon. Member should go and look at the United Nations procedure. He would then find that there is a difference between inscribing an item on the agenda and passing a resolution in specific terms.

Mr. Callaghan: The whole of the Minister of State's difficulty, as I understand it, is that a matter of domestic jurisdiction should not be on the agenda. Indeed, a former delegate, who is now present in the House, has said that it should not even be justified. If that applies in the case of South Africa, why does not it apply in the case of Hungary?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have tried already to show that the two cases are in no way parallel. The present situation in Hungary has come about as a result of direct interference in that country by a foreign power. That is not the case with the situation in South Africa.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Tibet. Tibet, again, is really quite a different case. The draft resolution on Tibet, which was laid before the General Assembly this year, dealt with alleged breaches of human rights in Tibet. It did not refer to the unlawful intervention by foreign forces. Therefore, we had to determine our attitude towards it on the same fundamental basis regarding Article 2 (7) of the Charter as applies in the case of the resolutions on racial policies in South Africa. However, owing to its constitutional position, the question


of Tibet presented certain unusual features and legal complications which cast some degree of doubt on the domestic jurisdiction.
In the almost certainly unique circumstances of this case, we came to the conclusion that we should abstain when the resolution was put to the vote. That is why the question of Tibet is not germane to the problem of racial conflict in South Africa—

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Was that conclusion arrived at on the grounds that Tibet is entirely a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of China?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not legally qualified to go into a precise analysis of the position of Tibet in relation to China, but it is a very remarkable position. A great many lawyers have different interpretations of the exact position of Tibet in that respect.
I want now to say a word about Indians in South Africa, a subject to which I have already referred. This is a matter that has repeatedly come before the Assembly, and I think it shows that there is less difference between the two sides of the House on Article II (7) of the Charter than the hon. Member has tried to suggest.
Successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have taken fundamentally the same view of the limitation placed on the Assembly's competence by Article II (7). At the very first session in 1946, and at every subsequent session, with but one exception, the General Assembly has considered the treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. This item concerns the status of one minority in South Africa, but the fundamental problem facing the Assembly has been whether or not the United Nations is competent to consider the matter.
There is doubt about the nature of the treaty obligations upon which the proposers and supporters of this item rely. It is not clear what is the status in international law of the outcome of the discussions that took place at various times between representatives of the Indian and the South African Governments. In particular, there is uncertainty about the status of what is known as the Cape Town agreement of 1927.
It is precisely for this reason, because there is doubt about the nature of whatever obligations may exist—and, therefore, doubt about the Assembly's competence in the matter of the Charter in view of Article II (7)—that in 1946 the Labour Government abstained from voting on the resolutions on the treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. They consistently abstained on similar resolutions in subsequent years. We believe that they were quite right, and we have followed their example. By so doing, neither we nor they should be considered as having passed any judgment upon the rights and wrongs of that dispute.
I have tried to show that although it is, of course, possible to misinterpret deliberately the actions taken by the United Kingdom Government at the United Nations, there is really very little excuse for so doing. In explaining our votes on various occasions, we have always made it abundantly clear that the very fact that, since our decisions have been based on an interpretation of Article II (7), which denied the United Nations Assembly competence in the matter, they could not possibly imply a judgment on the questions involved.
As for our own Government's attitude to racial discrimination and intolerance, that can be judged from their own example, from their own activities, and from the numerous statements of policy on this subject made by successive British Governments. My hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, will no doubt have more to say on this topic when he speaks later, but I would like to remind the House of a passage from the Foreign Secretary's speech at the general debate in the United Nations Assembly on 17th September this year.
My right hon. and learned Friend was discussing our special responsibilities towards the peoples of the dependent territories under British administration, and said:
In those territories where different races or tribes live side by side, the task is to ensure that all the people may enjoy security and freedom and the chance to contribute as individuals to the progress and well-being of these countries. We reject the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. Our policy, therefore, is non-racial; it offers a future in which Africans, Europeans, Asians,


the peoples of the Pacific and others with whom we are concerned, will all play their full part as citizens in the countries where they live, and in which feelings of race will be submerged in loyalty to new nations.
That is a clear, unequivocal declaration of British policy. It was made in the General Debate at a plenary session of the Assembly. It represents the Governments' fundamental attitude to racial discrimination, and our actions in particular committees on individual resolutions, or on single paragraphs of resolutions, are subordinate to, and should be judged in the light of this declared policy.
Everyone in this House recognises the many difficulties that inevitably arise in carrying through such a policy. British Governments Labour and Conservative, have had their disappointments. Nevertheless, we believe profoundly that such a policy is dictated to us by morality and by justice. I am proud of the example set by Her Majesty's Government, and I therefore ask the House to support the Amendment that I have moved, which approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination by all means within their power. If so amended, the Motion will be a positive one, and not the negative Motion put on the Order Paper by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I want to take up the Minister's words where he said that the Government are to be judged on their actions. I want to consider some of those actions and, in particular, to refer to the visit that the Prime Minister is shortly to pay to Africa. The Prime Minister will go to many places there, and he will go to two places where there is still racial discrimination.
The Prime Minister will not find much racial discrimination, fortunately, in East Africa. There was much of it at one time, but I am glad to say that there is very much less now. Tanganyika is undoubtedly an example of absence of racial discrimination and of tolerance that I hope will be followed by other countries. Even in Kenya the position has improved on that obtaining in 1950. I remember being there then and finding that it was impossible even

to take an African into any of the leading hotels. The situation is vastly different now, and we are all glad of it.
When we turn further south, what do we find? The Prime Minister will visit Central Africa, and will meet Sir Roy Welensky. Sir Roy has spoken of partnership and I should like the Prime Minister to ask him why it is an offence, in a country where there is partnership, for an African to criticise, or even to complain to the Government. That, in fact, is a punishable offence. Why is it an offence for an African even to argue with a Government official? It is impossible to think of that happening here, but in Central Africa it is actually an offence for an African to argue with a Government official. Why are European ambulances not allowed to pick up an African? If an African is hurt, he has to be left, perhaps to die, rather than be picked up by a European ambulance.
These may seem small things, but they mean much to the Africans there. Why is it legal for the police to arrest or detain an African without any explanation whatever? That is what happens in the British Commonwealth which prides itself on its system of law and order.
I hope the Prime Minister will ask these questions when he goes to Central Africa. Indeed, I hope he will do more than that. I hope he will set a personal example when he is there. I hope he will make it perfectly clear that he will accept invitations only to those places where there is no colour bar. I hope he will accept invitations in Central Africa, for which we still have a responsibility, only to those schools where there is no colour bar. He will find it very difficult in Southern Rhodesia to visit any on that basis. I hope also that he will only go to functions held in hotels where there is no colour bar. Again he will find it very difficult, but I hope he will do so. If he does, he will be doing a great service to the Commonwealth. I hope that he will have the courage to do it.
I turn to South Africa, which I suppose is the subject in which most of us are interested in today's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that there is


no inherent objection to the Prime Minister going to South Africa, in the same way as he goes to Russia or to any other country; but he is going to South Africa in rather different circumstances. When he went to Russia he made it perfectly clear from the outset that he was going there to talk to the Russians of whose system he heartily disapproved. His visit to South Africa apparently is part of a great tour round Africa to show how united the Commonwealth is. That kind of visit to South Africa can do more harm than good. It can strengthen the forces in South Africa which are aiming towards apartheid and all it stands for. The people in South Africa who support apartheid can twist this visit round—they can twist even the Prime Minister round—and that is a very difficult thing indeed to do—to make it appear that he is supporting South African policy by going there.

Mr. Braine: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that when repeatedly British Prime Ministers have made it clear that, despite the provisions of the South Africa Act, there is no question of our transferring the three Protectorates to South Africa? That is a clear indication that we do not approve of the native policies of the Union.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not know that it is as clear as all that. We all support that attitude on this side of the House, but I ask hon. Members to consider whether it would not be advisable if the Prime Minister did a bit more than that. He will have a remarkable opportunity. I expect he will have the freedom of the wireless. I am not sure if there is a television service there.

Mr. Braine: There is not.

Mr. Dugdale: If not, he will certainly have an opportunity on sound broadcasting. Will he say clearly what he thinks about apartheid? Will he say that he disapproves of apartheid, just as Mr. Khrushchev made it clear when he was in America that he did not like the capitalist system? He made that clear over the television service. Will the South Africans allow the Prime Minister to voice his disapproval, and will he do so if he is allowed? That in itself would do a considerable amount of good.
There are many progressive forces in South Africa today and, because of them,

South Africa is not entirely a bad country. Some of us have had the pleasure only today of hearing a South African in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—a brave man who belongs to a group of brave people in the Progressive Party. We do not want merely to write off South Africa. We want to do what we can to help her people, and one way in which we can help them is by the Prime Minister making these views perfectly clear in public during his visit.
What can we do as a House of Commons and as a British people? There are various things we can do. It would be of great value if we all personally boycotted South African goods. I do not suggest that the Government can do that, but if each of us did so, it would serve a very useful purpose in showing the feelings of people in this country. The co-operative society has already made a move in that direction, and I believe the effects have been felt by the South African Government. There is no time now, otherwise I would read a list of the various products that should be boycotted. It would be as well if they were known by everybody so that people knew what products they should boycott.

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine rose—

Mr. Dugdale: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. This action would help Africans, because it would make our feelings perfectly clear. I believe the South African Government pay attention to the feelings expressed in other countries. Not only am I convinced of that, but I think that liberal-minded people in South Africa are also convinced that the Government of South Africa are influenced by what we and other countries do.
There is another thing that we can do. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to pay an official visit, but I think those people—there may not be many of them here—who go off during the winter for a holiday might be advised not to go to South Africa but to go to the West Indies or somewhere else. There is one sphere of activity in which the South African Government could be influenced more than any other—more than by a political move or a boycott of goods or an economic move. I refer to the fields of drama and sport. I welcome what British Actors' Equity has already done. It


will not send any actors to South Africa unless they agree to perform before African as well as European audiences. That is of immense value. The Royal Ballet has said that it will only go to South Africa if it is permitted to perform for African as well as white audiences; that it will in fact perform before a wholly African audience in Johannesburg and, what is much more remarkable, before a mixed audience in Pietermaritzburg. That is the kind of thing which influences the Government of South Africa.
In sport, a good example has been set by Stanley Matthews, who has played football with Africans. He has made it perfectly clear that he does not believe in any form of apartheid. But when we consider other forms of sport, the situation is a little different. What a remarkable thing it would be if we were told that there would be no test match held in Africa unless the South African Government agreed that our players should play an African team. I should like them to play a mixed team, but even if they said that they would not go there unless they could play an African team, it would have more effect than many things which could be done by this Government in the field of economics or politics. I appeal to all cricketers in this country to urge that the test team should not go to South Africa unless it is made perfectly clear that they will be at liberty to play Africans as well as white people.
To return to the Prime Minister, he should make it abundantly clear during his visit that he is opposed to apartheid. He should say it on African soil to encourage those people in South Africa who are against apartheid. I hope that a message will go out from this House that we abhor racial discrimination and that we do not intend to allow nice questions of political expediency to prevent our saying so clearly and unmistakably so that people in South Africa and throughout the world can understand.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: This is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing the House. I realise that this is an important debate, and that there may be concealed behind the customary kindness and courtesy of hon. Members some impatience that the

debate should drift temporarily into the still waters of a maiden speech, but, nevertheless, I ask the House to show the tolerance that I have no doubt it possesses to me.
Taking the words on the Order Paper at their face value, I agree with both the Motion and the Amendment. Perhaps this is because I am unversed in the nice subtleties of this House, but the words of the Motion seem to me to be quite acceptable and do not direct the Government to vote in any specific way at the United Nations. To my mind, the passing of the Motion would not necessarily alter the Government's attitude in any way, but I find it strange that the Opposition should not feel able to accept the Amendment. Perhaps it is because I do not appreciate the subtleties of the matter, but one could hardly expect that hon. Members opposite would disapprove of the efforts of the Government to promote racial tolerance. The debate goes wider than South Africa. There is no mention of South Africa on the Order Paper.
I should like to put two general arguments which seem to me to be consistently underrated. The first concerns the kind of unpopular action needed to safeguard the sort of ideals mentioned on the Order Paper. The second is the need for tolerance in our approach to these sentiments. I disapprove whole-heartedly of racial intolerance or discrimination. Like, I imagine, most hon. Members, I consider that I have no racial prejudices whatsoever, but I am continually made aware of how little that tolerance costs. It involves me in no sacrifice or inconvenience, but there are many in this country from whom a great deal of sacrifice is required if they are to show that tolerance. They fear that their jobs or homes may be threatened.
Three years ago, in the course of my work, I had to show on a B.B.C. feature that some branches of the National Union of Railwaymen were preventing coloured workers from taking jobs as porters that lay vacant. It was right to do that because this was a mean piece of discrimination, but, from the angry letters which I received from railwaymen, it was made clear to me that they felt that the bargaining power of their union and the status of their jobs were threatened. When they said to me,


"It is all very well for you", I took their point.
There is a happier story to tell in my own constituency, where 1,000 West Indians have been absorbed quite peaceably into the Ladywell Ward of North Lewisham. There has been no trouble —certainly no trouble of the Notting Hill variety. But that has involved some sacrifice on the part of the people there. In one or two cases, West Indians with very different customs have moved into a house, perhaps twelve people to a house, with the result that the value of the next door house for which, perhaps, a man has saved all his working life has been almost halved overnight. In these circumstances, it is a great deal harder to be tolerant than if one is merely writing or speaking about the subject.
I feel that it is against this background, realising something of what it means, that one should discuss this subject. I think that more harm than good is done if those with nothing to lose demand racial tolerance from others at pistol point, so to speak. That sometimes seems to be the attitude of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) twice last year introduced a Bill to make any racial discrimination in this country punishable by law. I think that this suggestion was again put forward this afternoon by the Front Bench opposite —[An HON. MEMBER: "Give way."] I am willing to give way, but I hope that I have not misrepresented the hon. Member. Much as I respect the attitude behind the Bill, I personally feel that these matters are better not dealt with by legislation. In the end, such a measure in this country would have the effect of hardening attitudes and perhaps increasing the sum of bitterness and conflict.
It is in our overseas policy that this pistol-point approach to tolerance carries most danger. In "The Plural Societies," a pamphlet published by the Labour Party two or three years ago, it was said that a Labour Government would order the abolition of all statutory and administrative forms of racial discrimination throughout the Colonies. That is an admirable intention to which one would obviously subscribe, but to say that it should be done overnight shows a lack

of sensitivity to the very real human problems that sometimes underlie those forms of discrimination.
I spent a day at a working man's and artisan's club in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, earlier this year. Many of the views which I heard expressed there were alarmingly intolerant. They seemed to me to be prejudiced and racialist. But most of these people worked in jobs which had previously been protected for Europeans and which no Africans were able to obtain. Some of them had lived there from birth, some had gone out from this country since the war. Those who had gone out could hardly know what the future held for them, and they felt that in a way the terms of their contract were being altered. I could feel no sympathy for their views, but one must have sympathy and understanding for them.
It is wrong that these forms of discrimination should exist, but in their abolition one must take into account the suffering that may be caused to some of the Europeans. Some Europeans in that club were disturbed and some were angry at the new law which would make it necessary for unions to be multi-racial. They felt that they were seriously threatened. I feel that our job is to encourage and persuade and sometimes to push such people into more tolerant attitudes. We must always make it clear that time is short if real partnership is to be established.
But what does harm is for Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, who work extremely hard—they work harder than people in this country —and who feel that they are building a nation to be spoken of in Britain as if they were crooks. It is damaging if they feel that we, comfortably off in Britain, have no conception of their problems or sympathy with them. I feel that they are being made to move in the right direction, and I say that we should be tolerant in the demands that we issue for tolerance.
My second point is that the job of ensuring the rights of minorities leads to very unpopular measures. If, in the end, we are to ensure even a fair deal for Europeans in Central Africa, or for Asians in East Africa, we shall be involved in difficult and often, apparently, illiberal measures. Those who campaign for the ideals on the Order Paper must


be prepared to back up the unpleasant steps sometimes necessary for their implementation. I consider that the Sudan is a case in point. I spent the first few years of my life in the Sudan. My father was in the Sudan Political Service. If I speak on this topic with a little more heat than is customary in a maiden speech, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
Very little was heard, particularly from hon. Members opposite, at the time the Sudan was being given independence, and in the years before. about the African minority in Southern Sudan. They had suffered slavery before Britain arrived in the Sudan, and it was clear, I think, in the years before independence, that they were in grave danger from the Arab majority. I think that the Government failed to protect that minority. I am sure that very few of those who normally feel strongly against racial discrimination were there to stand up and say, "We will hold on in the Sudan for at least a year or two." It might have meant illiberal and authoritarian measures. It might even have meant an emergency situation. Surely, however, it would have been worth while if, in the end, we had been able to guarantee those human rights to a minority which had been oppressed.
There are, of course, other examples. The protection of the Turkish minority in Cyprus is one. As a maiden speaker, I must obviously concede that many hon. Members opposite saw different issues involved. But I wonder who has these ideals more at heart, those who ask that Jomo Kenyatta should be released or those who feel that he should still be further detained? I feel that it is those who are in favour of his detention. Those who deplore racial discrimination must be aware that it will not always land them on the easy, liberal side of an argument, but, very often, in the camp that temporarily it might be fashionable to look upon as illiberal and authoritarian.
I suppose that it would be conceded now that the argument in our colonial possessions is over, to quote a topical phrase, "means, not ends". There is no disagreement about where we are heading finally in Central or East Africa. It is to multi-racial States in which all races have equality. In South Africa,

the ends are different. The objectives are very different. The ideal of the South African Government is not multiracial, but separate States. When talking to an Afrikaans professor in one of their universities one cannot help but feel that apartheid, in theory, is an excellent, admirable and ethical solution. Alexander Steward, in his ably reasoned book, "You are wrong, Father Huddleston", represents the ideal by a little diagram. He portrays the present situation as two rectangles, one on top of the other, a white on top of a black. The ideal at which apartheid is aiming is two rectangles, separate but side by side, one white, one black.
On my own earlier argument for tolerance, one obviously must have a great deal of sympathy for the South African Europeans. History has placed them in an appalling position. They are a large minority. They have to contend not only with a conflict between black and white, but a conflict between the two European races.
Having said all that, however, it is clear that apartheid is no longer believed in even by the leaders in South Africa, simply because it is totally unworkable. Since the rejection by the South African Government of the Tomlinson Report, which laid down the minimal requirements to develop industrially and agriculturally the native reserves, apartheid no longer has the support even of those who pretend to implement it.
At the same time, measures are being stepped up under the pretence of apartheid. From the universities, Africans, Asians and coloureds are slowly being expelled. For the Indians, it not only means that they are denied all higher education but under the Group Areas Act their businesses and their homes are being transferred to barren strips of veldt. It is an exaggeration still to compare the plight of say, the Indians with that of the Jews in Hitler's Germany, because they are not subjected to the same violence. But more and more force is being required every year from the South African Government to implement their policies.
Already, there is mounting evidence to suggest that the pass laws are being used to supply slave labour, or something akin to it, to farmers who are short of African labour. I will not rehearse the facts


about South Africa that are fairly well known in this House. The question obviously, is: what should this country do? I believe, like the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), that there are separate actions for the Government and for the public. Even the Observer yesterday, I was glad to see, recognised that there are many things that the public should do which are not profitable for the Government. I believe that the public in this country should do all it can to help the victims of oppression and to show our disapproval of what is going on in South Africa.
I cannot support the boycott proposition, although I have a great deal of sympathy with it, It seems to me that this is a poor principle, although it might shake the Government and persuade one or two businessmen to be more vocal in their opposition. It is true to say that it would do harm immediately to the victims, but so does a strike against a genuine grievance. The real argument against the boycott is that it is wrong in principle to interfere with trade in this way. Once one starts, where does one stop? It makes no sense to stop buying sherry from South Africa and to buy it from Portugal or Spain, which are hardly regarded as bastions of liberalism. Should we stop buying Russian vodka? Trade is a vehicle for ideas and one should firmly hold to the principle that we should trade—and, indeed, foster more trade—with countries with whose policies we disagree.
I agree, however, with the right hon. Member for West Bromwich about sport and the arts. The Campaign against Racial Discrimination in Sport is doing a useful job. It is merely trying to implement the Olympic declaration, which states that no discrimination should be allowed against any country or person on grounds of race, colour, religion or politics. Some notable triumphs have been secured. Already, the perhaps humbler game of table tennis has been brought on to this basis and the campaign has succeeded in extracting from the South African Olympic Association a promise that its team that goes to the Olympics next year will be a mixed one. This is something that should have the support of every sportsman in this country.
I, too, would be glad to see the M.C.C. abiding by this elementary principle. It is

not, of course, binding upon the M.C.C., but I feel sure it is widely accepted throughout all sports, and I should like to see the M.C.C. refuse to play South Africa unless it has a multi-racial team. I think that this sporting effort might have more success than, perhaps, may be thought likely, because Europeans in South Africa are extremely interested in and affected by sports. Indeed, I think that they might be more affected by this than by votes in the United Nations.
On the question of the Government's attitude, I know that the progressives, the new Progressive Party in South Africa and many others who have sympathy with them, are anxious about the Prime Minister's visit. They feel that pictures taken of him with the South African Prime Minister may give a wrong impression. They feel that the net effect of his visit may be to make the job of the moderates in South Africa harder. I am glad, though, that he is going. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the delicacy of the situation, and I think that he has good reason to hope that from his talks with the South African Prime Minister a change of attitude could be expected. I am sure that he is right, before he goes to those talks, to show some reserve in what he says on the subject in public.
I believe, however, that the British Government may soon have to decide how much we should be inhibited by our desire to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. Of course, we want South Africa in the Commonwealth. It is better for the Africans, and it is better for everybody else, that South Africa should be in the Commonwealth, but that, I hope, will not lead us to seem to sit on the fence on so many occasions. It is, to me, hard to conceive that we should vote in the United Nations with South Africa.
I concede that Article II (7) of the Charter clearly says that there should be no interference in the internal affairs of member countries. There is, of course, great argument about the definition of two or three words in that statement. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have been consistent on this, and it seems to me that the line we have taken is a very reasonable one, but are we quite certain that in the situation of today that battle has not been lost?


Nearly every country now considers that that Article means something else. They may be wrong. I am not sure that it will make the United Nations a better place if the internal affairs of every country are to be discussed—if the internal affairs of Ghana or Pakistan, or whichever country happens to be in the news at the moment, are to be discussed —but it seems to me that Article II (7) is no longer any protection against that, because the majority of countries have decided to interpret it in a different way.
I therefore wonder whether it is not time for us to revise our policy simply because it leads, on occasions, to misrepresentations about our attitude, and to misunderstandings. I would hope that, however that may be, we should in the future follow the Commonwealth, every other Commonwealth country, and at least abstain on such resolutions.
I have tried to argue, I hope not at indecent length for a maiden speech, that if one is genuine about the ideals of this Motion one must often lay oneself open to charges of seeming to do exactly the opposite, and that we must often proceed slowly against forms of racial intolerance; this means that the Government cannot indulge in the sorts of angry outbursts of self-righteousness which are open to many others. I think that, as a matter of public relations, that makes it all the more important for the Government to seize every opportunity to get our attitude and belief in these ideals over to the world.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I have rarely been more pleased to catch the eye of the Chair, because it gives me the opportunity of expressing appreciation of the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). I hope it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I say that ever since I was a spectator when he broke the four-minute mile I have been a great admirer of him; and not only for his athletic prowess, but also for the consistency to which he has stood against racial discrimination in his profession in connection with television. It is a great delight to be able to express the appreciation of the House on the sincere and thoughtful speech, a speech which

reflects personality, which he has delivered tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted on this rare occasion to be expressing an opinion which I am quite sure is the opinion of the whole House.
I want, moreover, to thank the hon. Gentleman for having lifted this debate from the rather petty legalistic interparty atmosphere in which it had been. We are now discussing one of the supreme issues in the world. The emergence of the peoples of Asia and of Africa, the coloured peoples of the world to human equality is perhaps the greatest progressive revolution of this century.
We now have thousands of students from all these countries coming to our universities and the universities of America and of Europe. We have these territories in turn achieving their independence. We have these countries now exerting a very strong influence in the United Nations, and it is becoming clear that upon this issue of racial relations will largely depend the future harmony of the world. It is because this issue is so important, not only to two-thirds of the population of the earth but to our future relationship with them, that I have a little regretted tonight that so much of the debate has been argued in a legalistic manner.
I regard the vote which was given by Britain in the United Nations against the resolution which declared in favour of no race discrimination and segregation and in favour of human rights and fundamental freedoms as about the most humiliating action that has ever been taken by a representative of the British Government. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North was absolutely right. We cannot go on arguing this matter on a legal interpretation of Article II (7).

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Doubtful legality.

Mr. Brockway: I would challenge its legal soundness even though I am not a lawyer. It refers to matters which are internal, but what are internal matters? Can we possibly say today that relations between the white man and the coloured man can be regarded in any territory as an internal matter? Can we possibly say that the relations between races and the treatment of certain races as though


they were inferior to others, and the exclusion of the African and the Indian and the person of mixed race in the Union of South Africa from political rights of citizenship, and all the humiliations of the human personality which have to be faced every day, are internal matters of any State?
At the United Nations sixty-three countries voted one way, including a majority of the members of our Commonwealth and including the United States, and we were left in the humiliating position of being in a minority of three, with Portugal and France. That is sufficient to show that Britain's attitude can no longer be defended merely on the legalistic arguments about which we have been hearing this evening.
Tonight, I urge the House to realise that we must face this issue in the United Nations in a new way. I am so tired of the argument from one side of the House and the other of the way a party voted in 1946. This issue is not one between two sections of this House who want to score party points against each other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, this is an issue which is fundamental to the whole human race. We cannot satisfy it by saying, "You voted in such a way in 1946 and this was the reason why we voted 'yes' this year and in a different way another year." We must rise above petty, party barrackings at each other when we are dealing with these great human issues.
It has been suggested in the speech delivered by the Government bench tonight that if we press these issues too far in the United Nations we may be disrupting it. I believe that no Government in the world today can afford to leave the United Nations. Delegates protest, they walk out of the proceedings, but they come back. There was Soviet Russia which we condemned on the Hungarian issue. She is still in the United Nations. There is France, whose delegation walked out of the proceedings when Tunis was debated, and more recently when the Sahara test was debated. She is in the United Nations. There is the Government of the Union of South Africa whose delegates have walked out of the Assembly on a number of occasions when issues of this kind have been debated, but they are inside the United Nations.
I submit to the House that when Governments are repudiating what is in the Charter, what is in the Preamble to the Charter, which declares human rights and racial equalities; when they are repudiating the declaration of Human Rights which has been adopted by the United Nations, our British vote in the Assembly should be expressing a moral opinion. Then the United Nations will become of permanent value to the world if it is serving as the moral conscience of the world. Even if this means that on occasions delegates of Governments may walk out of the Assembly because of the protest that has been made, in one instance after another it has been shown that the influence of that vote has been good upon those countries. If one may illustrate it from one's own country, is there any doubt that the vote of the United Nations on the issue of our aggression in Suez—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that vote on that issue expressed the moral opinion of the world and saved us from going to further disaster.
I want to make a confession tonight, and that is that it is with diffidence that I criticise the Government of the Union of South Africa on the matter of racial discrimination because I am so aware of the racial discrimination which still continues in many British Colonies, in the Commonwealth and in this country.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North referred to the fact that I introduced a Bill dealing with racial discrimination. I nearly committed the discourtesy of interrupting his maiden speech because he suggested that I had introduced a Bill which would make all racial discrimination illegal. I was very careful about that. My Bill made racial discrimination illegal only in public places and public institutions.

Mr. Ronald Bell: In private firms also, surely.

Mr. Brockway: I should say that the relationship of employers to workers is a public relationship. I should have thought that anything which affected employment, production and the economy was a matter of public service and public life, and the Clause in my Bill which dealt with that was concerned, in my opinion, with a public matter and a matter of public relations.
I am conscious of racial discrimination in our own country and ashamed by Notting Hill and Nottingham. However, I do not think that one can take the view that one must not express an opinion on these matters because one does not have to sacrifice oneself to remove racial discrimination. If one took that line, one would very often not be in a position to speak for the victims of racial discrimination in our Colonies and Commonwealth. We have no right to criticise what is happening in the Union of South Africa unless our voices are quite clear in condemnation of racial discrimination and segregation as they occur, particularly, in the Rhodesias in Central Africa.
I think that probably our most effective way of influencing racial relationship in the Union of South Africa would be to make our own Protectorates in Africa models of racial equality and of African social and economic advance. The Observer of last Sunday has been quoted more than once today. It suggested in its leading article that the Protectorates had been held back because we did not want to embarrass the neighbouring Union of South Africa. Certainly education has been held back within the Territories. However, we must recognise that by the introduction of inter-racial legislatures in Basutoland and Bechuanaland an example is being given of inter-racial citizenship which may have a profound effect in the Union of South Africa. If we really want to influence events in the Union of South Africa, we must make our Protectorates of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland examples of racial equality and African education, social and economic advance.
I hope that before the debate ends there will be a response to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and that a very clear declaration will be made that we shall still stand against the incorporation of the three Protectorates in the Union of South Africa as long as racial discrimination, segregation and apartheid remain there.
I say, in conclusion, that the British vote at the United Nations was deplorable. In the first place, it will deepen the distrust of Africans throughout the

Continent of our Government and of this country. The crisis at this moment is in Central Africa, and the fear in many minds is that that situation may develop into one of terrible violence. Not merely South Africa but the whole of Africa today is resurgent and dynamic. Africans in every part of that territory are feeling their solidarity and the British vote—this minority of 3 against 62 nations in the United Nations Assembly—will deepen the conviction among the millions of Africans that this country is not sympathetic to the ideals of racial equality.
The second reason I deplore this vote is because I believe that Britain today, although a less material power than it has been in the past, has a tremendous moral influence in the world. If we were standing in the United Nations for human rights and liberties and racial equality, we would be true to all that is best in the history of this country. That is why we are shocked by the British vote. That is why we are ashamed of the British vote, and that is why we on this side of the House shall vote against the Government tonight. We desire to show to the world that we believe in human liberties and racial equality.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Tonight's debate, and, in particular, the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), has revealed perfectly clearly that the dislike of racial intolerance is by no means limited to one side of the House. I think that hon. Members will concede that, generally speaking, in this country we all share the dislike of racial intolerance. It is only a matter of how we approach this problem.
It is for that reason that I cannot share the point of view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that our behaviour in the United Nations can be regarded as based merely upon legalistic quibbles. The reputation and future of the United Nations must rest to a great extent as to what lengths we allow its procedure to be varied because of a genuine emotional desire for the time being to make public our feelings on certain issues. I cannot accept our reservations on this as merely a legalistic quibble. Let us see where we would go if we


followed these emotions in talking about racial intolerance in South Africa. If once the precedent is established—and it may well be by an overwhelming majority of votes—that it is in order to discuss racial discrimination within a sovereign authority within the United Nations, it will not only be South Africa which will be concerned.
I should like to remind the House that it is not so long ago that we had racial riots in Ceylon and other countries of the Commonwealth and that there are also signs that Asian countries with Chinese minorities are beginning to get nervous about these minorities.
There are, indeed, plenty of other countries in which there are allegedly oppressed racial or sectional minorities. If once we give way to the conception that because we all feel particularly strongly about what is happening in South Africa we can discuss it publicly in the General Assembly or the United Nations, that body, whatever else happens, will completely vary the rôle it has played hitherto and become a mere debating chamber for those issues of the day, within the domestic jurisdiction of one country after another, which happen to excite international public opinion. That must lessen its influence.
The point was made that we should be ashamed of our United Nations vote because we were in a small minority. I cannot understand why one should necessarily be wrong when one is in a minority. if that is the case, the Labour Party has been self-confessedly wrong in its policies in the last three General Elections. If the further point is made that the Labour Party is not a small minority, our Liberal friends, on this argument, have no basis for existence, because they are in a very small minority. More seriously, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend—and I am satisfied that they were not mere legalistic quibbles, but were consistent and valid reasons—we had to vote against what I know must have been the moral inclination of those concerned.
The other ground of criticism which seems to have arisen from the debate concerns the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) quoted a number of newspaper reports about it. I notice that he did not refer

to the leader in The Times the other day, which described the suggestion of the Opposition that the Prime Minister's visit implied some sort of endorsement of South African policy as the worst bit of irresponsible nonsense that had emerged in this House for some time. That was a quotation to which we were not treated tonight.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who is not now in the Chamber, said that when the Prime Minister went out to South Africa he should appear on television—if there is television out there—or on the radio, to make an assault on the policies of that country. He said that there would be nothing wrong in doing that.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that there was no parallel to draw in connection with the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union; it could not be said that that was an endorsement of the policies of that country, because the Prime Minister's view about Communism was known perfectly well. I am sure that the attitude of him and this Government and this country towards racial discrimination in all places where we have sovereign rule is equally well known.
If it is argued that the Prime Minister should make public speeches in South Africa attacking matters within South Africa's domestic jurisdiction, one might as well argue that when he visited the Soviet Union he should have made speeches attacking concentration camps, the secret police, and the lack of a vote. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would have said if he had taken the advice of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich.
Furthermore, if it is said that the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa is an implied endorsement of racial intolerance, I wonder whether the Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition would agree that their visit to the Soviet Union allows hon. Members on this side of the House to say that, since their attitude towards Communism is, to be kind, neither more nor less well known than is that of the Conservative Party, that visit was an endorsement of many of the things that go on in the Soviet Union. On the argument put forward by hon. Members opposite we


are entitled to say that the Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition, by their recent visit to Moscow, implied that they endorsed Soviet Union policies.
The Opposition always find themselves in a difficulty in these debates, because they suffer from a series of blind spots. Tonight, it is apparently quite in order for us to criticise what is going on in South Africa. I said myself at the beginning of my remarks that I do not dissent from the expressions of abhorrence of certain aspects of Government policy there. But it is noticeable that there has not been a word said about what the Prime Minister ought to do when he passes through Ghana on his way to the Union of South Africa. Should he go on the radio in Ghana and say that there are certain aspects of domestic policy in that country of which he does not approve, such as locking up members of the opposition party and the five-year detention without trial which is now part of the ordinary legal system of that country? Are hon. Members opposite saying that my right hon. Friend ought to do something like that before he gets to the Union?
Is it seriously suggested by hon. Members opposite that when the Prime Minister went to India he ought to have expressed his disapproval of an Act which applies in Indian-occupied Kashmir, where there is five-year detention without trial as part of the permanent legal system? Why is it that only when the Prime Minister goes to South Africa he is asked to do things which hon. Members opposite would disapprove of him doing in any other country?

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman has referred to "blind spots" from which hon. Members on this side of the House suffer. Would he be fair enough to acknowledge that many of us who criticise these things in South Africa have also criticised them in the case of Ghana, India and the other places which he mentioned?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me on these lines before. I listened to his speech tonight, but I did not hear him mention that the Prime Minister should drop off at Ghana on his way to South Africa. So I repeat

my charge that hon. Members opposite suffer from blind spots which weaken the whole force of their arguments on every occasion.
I remember the very warm welcome which was rightly given last summer to a Government statement that a distinguished trade delegation was going to Moscow in an endeavour to increase trade between the Soviet Union and this country. About two days later there were no less unenthusiastic comments from the benches opposite, expressed with equal warmth, about a suggestion that a trade delegation in charge of a Minister might go to Portugal. The remark was made that surely we did not want someone of the distinction of the Prime Minister, or a senior member of the Cabinet, going to a country where an authoritarian system was in force. So it was all right in the case of the Soviet Union, but only two days later it was all wrong for Portugal. It is for such reasons as this that, time after time, we are given valid grounds for believing that hon. Members opposite are not logical or consistent in their attacks. We have had many examples of this and I am prepared to wager that there will be an increasing number of similar situations in the future.
What would be the practical result were we to adopt the suggestion of the Opposition that the Prime Minister should go to Africa and attack the policies of that country? Apart from the rhetoric of their speeches this evening and their desire—despite their denials— to score party points in the debate, do hon. Members opposite think for a moment that such a course of conduct on the part of the Prime Minister would help the South African people of all political parties to adopt a more reasonable attitude?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, I have only a short time left in which to speak and I do not propose to give way again. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) spends a great deal of his time in the Chamber on his feet, and when he is not standing up speaking he is usually talking while sitting down, so I do not propose, on this occasion, to give way to him.
I repeat my conclusion that the practical result of the suggestion by hon. Members opposite, were we to accept it—and they know perfectly well that we shall not, and that were they in office their own Prime Minister would also not do anything so foolish and irresponsible—is that they are not all as idealistically interested as they would like us to believe in solving the problems of racial discrimination. It is that, tonight, they are united on one of the few questions on which they are capable of uniting at the present time.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I shall not attempt to discuss the comparative merits and demerits of the policies of the last Labour Government and the present Government. I am concerned with the issues that we are facing today. I wish to make a very brief comment, however, on the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). I think that the Duke of Edinburgh made a very wise and courageous speech at the university when he visited Accra. 1 hope the Prime Minister will follow that example in the various countries he visits.
On the subject of the Prime Minister's tour, I see no objection in principle to the Prime Minister going to South Africa, but, of course, the interpretation that is placed upon that visit is of very great importance. It is absolutely essential that he should go to the High Commission Territories. He has expressed a hope that he will go there. On 26th November, in reply to a Question, he said:
It is certainly my hope to take the opportunity of my visit to the Union of South Africa to visit also the three High Commission Territories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 559.]
I should like to hear that it is certain that he is going to all the High Commission Territories.
The right hon. Gentleman has a very great responsibility in visiting South Africa. If he can make it absolutely clear, without any shadow of doubt, that Britain is not pursuing a policy of appeasement towards South Africa and, at the same time, encourage the High Commission Territories in their political and economic advance towards complete racial equality and self-government, I think that the visit might do some good,

but I do not think that hon. Members should be blamed if they have a feeling of uneasiness. One reason for this uneasiness is the behaviour of the British representatives at the United Nations. As this is a very short debate, and I have little time, I shall come at once to the point. I do not think that we have had any satisfactory excuse or explanation of the votes at the United Nations on the subject of racial discrimination and the subject of South West Africa.
I am, of course, aware of Article II (7). I am also aware of Article I (3) of the Charter and I am aware of the Declaration of Human Rights. Surely, objecting to the resolution calling upon member States to observe the principles of the Charter, on the ground that it is contrary to Article II (7), is stretching the interpretation of that Article too far. I do not believe that the legal arguments present the true reasons for the vote. To put it quite bluntly, I believe that Britain is using a narrow, legalistic interpretation as a cloak for a policy of expediency.
Some of these resolutions on race relations are very moderate in terms. I think that the legal arguments against them have been particularly weak, especially on the resolution passed in the Committee on 10th November and the resolution before the Assembly on 17th November calling on member States to bring their policies into conformity with their obligations under the Charter. To suggest that France, Portugal and Britain were courageously upholding the correct interpretation of the Charter is something more than I can stomach. These votes tend to create an impression—it may be a quite false impression—that Britain is pursuing a policy of appeasement about racial discrimination in South Africa.
May I, for a moment, act as devil's advocate? It might be said that there are too many resolutions at the United Nations and that those who put them forward have too little sense of responsibility, as have those against whom they are aimed. There might be some truth in that. It might be that sometimes resolutions are concerned with matters essentially within the domestic responsibility of a particular nation, but the decision should not rest with any one nation. I should like to see this treated


as a matter for the International Court. I welcomed the statement made last April by Vice-President Nixon, of the United States. Because of the time, I cannot quote it in full, but it was in support of the view that future international agreements should include provisions binding the parties to submit disputes arising from them to the International Court and to accept the Court's decision. On that occasion—it was on 13th April of this year—Vice-President Nixon declared that the Administration would soon attempt to modify the reservation which gives the United States the right to determine unilaterally whether the subject of a particular dispute was a domestic matter or not.
I should like to see Britain follow that lead, and propose that all these questions of the interpretation of a resolution should be tested by the International Court. I know that that may involve some delay, but many of these points about which these resolutions are concerned do not need to be acted upon within 24 hours. There is time to take them to the International Court. I should like to see Britain setting an example, and trying to persuade as many other nations as possible to agree that where this question is in dispute—whether it is a domestic matter or not—it should be decided by the International Court, and that, in any case, Britain would abide by that decision.
I should like to see other reforms of the United Nations. I think it only right that we should be positive and put forward something constructive. The United Nations is a kind of club, and its members must observe the rules. I should like to see every sovereign State being a member of the club automatically. If that were so, the appropriate sanction would not be to expel members from the club. Therefore, I should like to see a proposal adopted—it may be impracticable at present—whereby any member acting in breach of a resolution would forfeit the right to vote until there was a positive resolution wiping the slate clean. I believe that that would be a deterrent. I believe there is a public opinion in the world. I also believe that member States would be very chary of being branded as States not entitled to vote. That is what I should like to see put forward by Britain.
In the meantime, the best way we can help is to avoid these unforunate situations in which Britain finds herself in a minority of three on a technicality. After all, Britain has an important rôle to play. We have already had quoted extracts from an article by William Clark in the Observer. I shall not quote the whole paragraph again, but may I read one or two sentences:
Yet at present Britain forfeits the right to lead (and the lesser Powers lack alternative leadership) because the United Kingdom finds it necessary on almost every occasion to vote in the tiny minority of pro-colonialist Powers. Is it necessary or prudent for Britain to choose to support South Africa and lose the support of the civilised world? Is there any sense in the nation which above all has brought its colonies forward to self-government putting itself in the position of supporting a reactionary racial policy that has earned world-wide condemnation?
To that question, I would say, emphatically, "No".

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Although I rise to oppose the Motion and to support the Government's Amendment, I know that hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any personal sympathy with racial intolerance or racial discrimination. During the past year or more, I have made as close a study as I can of race relations, and have tried as hard as I can, in company with many other hon. Members from both sides of the House, to reduce racial tension and improve race relations in the United Kingdom.
I feel just as strongly about the reduction of racial tension in the Commonwealth as a whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that this problem of racial relations is one of the most important that faces us in the second half of the twentieth century. It is a great world issue which we must do our very best to resolve, particularly in Britain, which is the heart and centre of a great multi-racial Commonwealth, the vast majority of whose citizens are coloured.
In my view, we shall not retain the integrity or the cohesion of the Commonwealth unless we can eradicate colour prejudice here in Britain and also throughout the other territories for which we have responsibility overseas. The emergence of the new Commonwealth and its full development is a tremendously exciting and important task and responsibility for us as the leaders of it. I


believe that the solution of the race relations issue is quite central to it. If we cannot solve it, we shall imperil our whole colonial policy under any Government and our whole Commonwealth ideal and purpose. If we can solve it, we shall set a wonderful example to the whole world.
That is my faith, and I hold it with deep sincerity. I therefore support wholeheartedly the first dozen words of the Opposition Motion, and I welcome the debate, as other hon. Members have, because it gives us an opportunity to make the declaration which the first dozen words of the Motion contains and also to correct the widely held misapprehensions which exist outside the House about our vote on the United Nations apartheid resolution. Let me acknowledge at once to the Opposition that our vote did cause widespread anxiety, criticism and misunderstanding outside. I have been approached by very many coloured British citizens residing in this country who were horrified by our vote and did not at all understand the reasons for it. They thought that the vote gave some endorsement to South African racial policy. Therefore, harm was done, and I am thankful for the Motion, because it gives us an opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding.
I should have preferred if we had abstained on the United Nations resolution, as Canada and Australia did, because the racial policy of South Africa is a source of regret and embarrassment to us all. It is completely contrary both to our principles and to our practice in the Colonial Territories for which we have responsibility.
But we must look at the speeches as well as the votes in the United Nations. There is, in the Library, a summary of the speeches. I agree very much with the representative of Finland, who said that the practice of racial discrimination was in fact a denial of human rights and of fundamental freedoms. But I also agree with him when he said that negotiation and conciliation would be more likely to succeed in influencing the Government of the Union than the repetition of resolutions passing judgment upon the South African Government. The United Kingdom representative said categorically that the British Government were opposed to the continuance of

racial discrimination in any part of the world. That statement should be noted outside the House.
The truth is that sovereign States do not like interference from other States in their domestic affairs. We should not like it. The British voter, the ordinary British working man, would be the very first to resent it. And we have no monopoly of patriotic feeling in such matters! No doubt South Africans feel exactly the same. Nothing rallied the Spanish people more effectively behind the Government of General Franco than the criticism of his régime by the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Nations in the years following the war. It does not help publicly to criticise friends and allies. It is the very worst way of influencing them to mend their ways. The Labour Party never seems to understand that; but it is only human nature.
We remember the insistence of the Leader of the Opposition, a year or so ago, that the Government should publicly rebuke the United States for their Formosan policy. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to harden their policy and make matters worse than a public rebuke from a friend at that time. Of course we were not so foolish. It is just as though one of us, instead of going to a friend and criticising him in private, wrote a letter to The Times criticising him. It would not be at all well received. Great sovereign nations do not like it either. Private advice in a private conversation is very different and is much more likely to achieve what we all want to achieve. Why should we publicly affront a fellow member of the Commonwealth? Is that the way to maintain close and harmonious relations? Is it the aim of the Opposition to induce South Africa to leave the Commonwealth? It might very well lead to that. The vast majority of our people dislike very much the South African racial policy of apartheid, and the South Africans know it perfectly well.
We disapprove of it very strongly indeed and consider it quite inimical to all that a multi-racial Commonwealth should stand for. That is my personal feeling, and I am sure that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. But South Africa is an independent sovereign State, and it is not for us to dictate to her what


her internal policies should be, just as it would not be for other nations to tell us what we should do about our own internal affairs. For instance, there is Ulster. Would we like other nations to tell us what to do about Ulster? I can think of nothing more certain to irritate public feeling here, and still more, public feeling in Northern Ireland.
Ghana and Pakistan have been quoted as not being democracies in the true sense. And once we breach the principle of non-interference in the case of a sovereign State like South Africa we risk interference not only in Britain and her Colonies but in other sovereign States in the Commonwealth, such as Ghana and Pakistan, which, I am sure, neither they nor we would want.
I would have liked to speak at greater length on this subject, but I promised to sit down by 9.20. I will therefore, conclude by saying that much as I would have liked my right hon. Friends in the Government to have instructed our delegate to abstain in the vote at the United Nations—having regard to what we all feel in our hearts—yet, feeling that, I would far sooner, following the principle of non-interference, they instructed him to vote against the resolution rather than to vote for it.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sure that the House will agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in emphasising the great importance of the subject matter of this debate. Racial discrimination presents the world with one of the gravest and most critical of its political problems. The American author, Herbert Agar, recently wrote:
This is about the last chance that the white race has of joining the human race as an equal.
This evening we have had from both sides of the House eloquent speeches denouncing racial discrimination in all aspects of life: in sport—we welcomed, if I may say so, the notable maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Mr. Chataway) on that theme—in the arts, in education—in the whole range of social and economic life. It is a splendid thing that this message of the House of Commons as a whole should have been uttered at this time of crisis in the affairs of Africa, and at a time

when the Prime Minister is about to visit the Government of the Union of South Africa.
I must immediately dispute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) that we on this side have suggested that when the Prime Minister goes to South Africa he should there make a public denunciation of South African policy. No one on this side has suggested that, and it would be quite absurd to do so. What has been said from this side is that opportunities should be taken for conversations between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, in which our point of view can be clearly and firmly, and, we hope, forcefully expressed.
I am quite sure that the result of what would happen would not present us with the remarkable situation that has arisen from the visit of Field Marshall Montgomery to Cape Town. He is reported in the Daily Mail of 5th December as saying:
He had the greatest admiration for the South African Premier. It was absurd to say that the Union was a police State. Asked if he had seen the other side of the country, he replied, 'I am satisfied that things are not as bad as people say. I have not met non-European leaders, because they have all been banished.'
That is a remarkable political contribution by Field Marshal Montgomery.
We feel that the debate is opportune because the Prime Minister can now take with him the clear message that the House most fervently opposes racial intolerance and discrimination. In the light of what has been said today, if it is meant sincerely on the part of the representatives of the Government, for the life of me I cannot understand why they seek to delete from the Opposition Motion the words:
That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination…
Why the deletion? Do they not agree with those words? Why do they delete the words:
…and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act on all occasions, particularly at the United Nations, in a manner wholly consistent with this declaration.
What is wrong with that? I share the difficulty of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North in failing to understand


why his party cannot support the Motion. Why is it that, although there have been eloquent voices in the House, the Government voice on this matter has been so muted?
As for the Government's official representation at the United Nations, we have, a we have been reminded more than once today, found ourselves ultimately in a position where we have taken a stand against the view of the overwhelming majority of civilised States who have gone on record in criticising the apartheid policies of the South African Government—policies which represent perhaps the cruellest and ugliest of all contemporary manifestations of racial discrimination. Gradually, our friends have deserted us in this battle on the issue of apartheid until, in the end, we are left with France and Portugal. It is a most shameful story. The battle has been lost. The battle should never have been joined in the name of Britain. It is no use saying that by our votes we do not mean to condone apartheid. The United Nations is a political assembly. A vote is a vote. One is either against this issue, against these monstrous practices, or one is for them. There is no room for neutrality upon this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in opening the debate, read the text of the resolution which was adopted by the General Assembly and against which our representative was put up to vote. Is any passage of it not wholly acceptable to the Government? It says:
The General Assembly … notes with concern that the policy of apartheid is still being pursued. Expresses its opposition to the continuance or preservation of racial discrimination in any part of the world".
Apparently, we support that opposition—
Solemnly calls upon all member states to conform with their Charter obligations and to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Expresses its deep regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to appeals of the General Assembly that it reconsider governmental policy which impairs the rights of all racial groups to enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms.
That language is moderate in character, representing apparently everything that the Government say they stand for. Why vote against it? We are told

tonight, "We are not for apartheid." I hope that the Government spokesman who is to follow me will be eloquent on this theme, and not silent, as was the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. If it be the case that the Government oppose apartheid, I hope that they will say so in clear terms. It is said that we were driven by the force of legal necessity to take the position that we have taken at the United Nations. One of my hon. Friends deplored the fact that the debate has been full of legal aridness, but I must be forgiven, in view of the apparent intention of the Government to maintain their legal position in this matter, if I make a few comments about what seems to me to be the legal position.
It is our view that the Government's legal case is a bad one. I do not know who has been the legal adviser of the Government in this matter. I am told that at the time of Suez one of the things which the Government did not do was to consult the legal department of the Foreign Office. Perhaps that was a wise thing in the circumstances of what they were about to do, but I can say that some of the world's greatest international lawyers share the view which we on this side take—it is certainly my view—that the Government's case based on Article II (7) of the Charter is bad.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In that case, could the hon. and learned Member explain the votes of the Labour Government concerning the Indians in South Africa? Why did they quote Article II (7) of the Charter?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I hope that the Government's reply to the debate will be on a more serious level than that. What I can say is that there was abstention by the representative of the Labour Government on that issue, not an adverse vote. The present Government see fit not merely to abstain, but to go into battle with Portugal and France.
The legal issue in this matter turns upon the interpretation of two of the principal terms in Article II (7), namely, "intervene" and
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
It is significant that paragraph 7 refers only to such action on the part of the


United Nations as amounts to intervention. It does not rule out measures such as the resolutions of the Assembly falling short of intervention. Intervention in the context of the Charter is a technical term meaning a peremptory demand, or an attempt at interference accompanied by enforcement, or threat of enforcement in the case of non-compliance. Discussion, debate, investigation, recommendations by the General Assembly are not, in the view of the most eminent international lawyers, intervention in this sense.
That is the view expressed by no less an authority than the British judge at the International Court of Justice, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. He has said, in his classic study, "International Law and Human Rights":
The General Assembly or any other competent organ of the United Nations are authorised to discuss a situation arising from any alleged non-observance by a state or a number of states of their obligation to respect human rights and freedoms.
That most eminent authority has also said this in quite express terms—and his edition of Oppenheim's "International Law" is said to be the bible of the Foreign Office; one would have thought that the Foreign Office would have learnt something from this—
The provisions of the Charter and its solemn and repeated provisions in the matter of human rights would be rendered meaningless if Article II (7) were interpreted as excluding, for instance, the right of investigation and recommendation".
As to the phrase
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State",
as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) pointed out, both the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations and Article I make it crystal clear that the raison ďêtre, if I may put it as high as that, of the United Nations is to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is stated in precise and well-known terms and I shall not trouble the House with quotations. The Charter refers no fewer than eight times to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as to their observation, as one of the fundamental principal purposes of the United Nations.
The Charter does not only declare rights: it creates and imposes international legal obligations for its members, perhaps these days the most fundamental legal obligations that exist in the whole of international law. As protection of human rights has been written into the Charter as one of the basic purposes for which the United Nations was called into existence, surely it is clearly wrong to contend that the question whether a member State advances or obstructs human rights and fundamental freedoms within its territories is essentially a matter merely within its domestic jurisdiction.
Not only does the Charter, when properly interpreted, directly oppose any such contention, but the practice of the General Assembly itself over a period of 13 years disproves its validity. For instance, as long ago as 1946 the General Assembly refused to treat the question of the political régime in Spain as a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of that State. In 1948, when the question arose of dealing with the refusal of the Soviet Government to allow the Russian wives of foreign diplomats to leave Russian territory, the Assembly, on that occasion, also, rejected the view that the observance of human rights was within the scope of Article II (7). The same has been done on a great many occasions and the Government, by their votes and their resistance to this development since 1951, have been flying in the face of consistent decisions by the United Nations contrary to their view.
It is a well-established principle in international law that no State can plead its own domestic legislation to justify breaches of its international obligations. It is, indeed, lamentable that the British Government, by their votes at the United Nations, should seem to be encouraging South Africa to take a different view, the view that human rights within its community are its own exclusive concern.
We have a direct interest in the matter, both because these human rights are now guaranteed internationally and by the important coincidence that those who are being adversely affected are enjoying British citizenship and have the right of such influence on their behalf as we are still able to exercise. Therefore, on


grounds of a fair construction of the Charter, of the writings of the most eminent of lawyers and of United Nations practice, at the very least there is room for argument and for doubt about this legal proposition which has driven the Government into taking such unfortunate political action at the United Nations. Indeed, the view that their legal position is ill-advised has strong support.
Therefore, whatever else may emerge from this debate, we on this side of the House ask the Government immediately to give instructions to their representative at the United Nations to put an end to this abysmal record of being on the wrong side of the fence. This is a critical time in our affairs, and the Government, in taking protection in this matter on a legal point of doubtful validity, in the face of what is expected of us by our people and by the overwhelming majority of the population of the Commonwealth, of Asia and of Africa, and in pursuing their position at the United Nations, are, in our view, betraying the trust which has been placed in their hands.
We believe that when a friend or an ally errs we have a duty to tell him so. We have a responsibility, for instance, to the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa to assist them in any way we can, and we sincerely hope that the Prime Minister, before he leaves for South Africa, will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate and take with him the eloquent message that in no circumstances will we tolerate racial discrimination.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) on his maiden speech. He did well to remind the House that the problems of racial discrimination are problems which we face here, as they are being faced by other countries overseas. He gave the House what I might call a most compassionate speech, which showed an engaging independence of mind, and the House will wish to hear him again on many occasions.
The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)

sought to draw a distinction between the first half and the second half of the terms of the Motion which the Opposition has moved. He is, surely, an astute enough practitioner of the law to know that that Motion must be taken as a whole. It was drafted for that purpose, and it was drafted in a critical sense as far as the policies and actions of the Government are concerned. In those circumstances, it would not be possible for the Government to accept it other than by amending it, as we intend to do at the end of this debate, and amending it in its entirety.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has fully explained the principle upon which our vote at the United Nations was based. We made it perfectly clear at the time that we were voting against an attempt, which we regarded as a misuse of the forum of the United Nations, in defiance of Article II (7) of the Charter, to interfere in the internal domestic policies of a member country.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said that the United Nations was a club and that all members of the club should obey the rules. We cordially agree with the point that he made. In our view, the rule on this matter is perfectly explicit, and what we were doing, even though we were voting in a minority, was what we believed should be done, and that is to try to maintain the rules laid down for the club as we conceive them to be framed and intended.
We did not by our vote seek to commend or condemn the racial policies of the member country concerned. We believe that if the United Nations is allowed to
intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State
the authority of the United Nations will progressively be weakened. Had this Article not been inserted in the Charter and observed by its members, there would have been nothing to prevent the Labour Government of 1945 to 1950 from being arraigned at the United Nations for their policies in Malaya. After all, between July, 1948, and June, 1950, over 25,000 persons were the subject of detention orders and imprisonment without trial. I do not think for


one moment that right hon. Members, particularly hon. and learned Members, opposite would have accepted that it was merely a legal quibble if we had advanced in defence of our rights in these circumstances the provisions of Article II (7) of the Charter in order to support action which we believed to be essential in those circumstances and which in actual fact has enabled Malaya to advance to independent status within the Commonwealth and into taking its place as a member of the United Nations itself.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked the Government to make clear their intentions on various points, but I have noticed that he did not follow the challenge which was made to his party in the leader in the Guardian today when it said:
What sort of resolution would they, if in office, regard as being in order (though not necessarily as justified) in criticism of British policy?"—
of what I assume to be South African policy.
If they can say that, the debate will gain fresh substance.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to come before the House and give us their views in general terms, but I think there is some responsibility upon the shoulders of hon. Members opposite, particularly on the Opposition Front Bench, to be specific as to what action they would have taken in those circumstances had they been in power.
The views of the United Kingdom Government on questions of race discrimination are perfectly clear. They have already been described by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, but they were expressed in a different way by Sir Andrew Cohen, our permanent representative on the Trusteeship Council, not so very long ago, when he said:
It is our constant aim, Sir, to banish discrimination where it may still be found by the use of positive measures which would increase co-operation between races that are living together. In this way we are, in the words of a former Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Chandos), trying to create every day that passes more and more things in which the people of these territories, all the people, have a common interest and a common purpose.

That policy and approach has inspired our attitude to race relations and race discrimination both here and in the overseas territories for which we are responsible. We believe that it is by means of bringing races together upon the common ground of understanding that we will eventually do things which would be very difficult if not impossible to achieve by legislation or administrative action.
The House should not forget—and I think that it is right to point this out in the interest of the historic basis of British colonial policy—that many of the provisions which exist in our overseas territories and which, I suppose, could be described as discriminating between races, particularly where these affect land tenure and commercial practice, were designed precisely to protect African peoples against exploitation and the abuse of their interests. Therefore, I consider we should be careful in all circumstances when we are dealing with this problem to make certain that we realise that in certain circumstances it is important that the interest of minorities or maybe of majorities should be protected by legislation or the action of Government.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, in opening the debate, made it clear that one object was to call in question the propriety of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa. That the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should for the first time in history pay a visit while in office to countries of the Commonwealth situated in Africa, and should include both influential independent members, like Ghana and South Africa, and dependencies like Bechuanaland, is an event which I should have thought all people, irrespective of party, would have welcomed warmly.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman might have listened to the debate. What I said was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] There are Ministers here who are within the recollection of what I said. The Colonial Secretary is here and he will be able to contradict me if I did not say that.
I did not have the good fortune to read the Guardian this morning before I came here, but if I had done so and if


I had realised that the question was being put, I would have answered that we would have voted unequivocally for the resolution at the United Nations. I would like to ask one question. What is it in the resolution that prevented us from at least abstaining if we could not vote for it?

Mr. Alport: That was not the question which was put by the Guardian. It asked what would be the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—action hon. Gentlemen opposite would have regarded as being appropriate. But I will give it to the hon. Gentleman, he has shown himself in his speech as not being absolutely and entirely up to date on the subject with which we are dealing. In fact, he has forgotten that this Motion was put down as a result of exchanges which took place in the House last week, in which the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen opposite left no doubt that what they were seeking to question was the propriety of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. That is quite untrue. We have never sought to question the propriety of the Prime Minister's visit. What we have suggested—and this debate has given the Government an opportunity they have so far failed adequately to take—is that they should make it plain that they, like us, are wholly opposed to the policy of apartheid.

Mr. Alport: If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will give the answer in the words of The Times leading article on 2nd December, which was based upon that particular exchange to which I have referred. It stated:
Mr. James Callaghan invited the Prime Minister to realize that his forthcoming visit to South Africa is 'in itself taking up a position' about apartheid. If Mr. Callaghan's argument held water then Mr. Macmillan, by being the guest of or the host to Mr. Khruschev would be taking up a position about the plight of, for instance, the Baltic States and Hungary. Mr. Gaitskell went even farther astray in his questions to Mr. Macmillan. For the second time in a few days Parliament has heard the Leader of the Opposition calling upon the Prime Minister publicly to announce in advance of his meeting Dr. Verwoerd, that he proposed to take the opportunity of lecturing his host on the evils of apartheid."

[An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Observer editorial."] The truth of the matter is that, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, at a time when public interest is focussed on Africa it is surely right that someone like the Prime Minister, who has great responsibilities with his colleagues in the United Kingdom for shaping the developments taking place there, should go out to see for himself the problems which exist there at first hand.
No one has ever supposed that a visit by a Prime Minister of one Commonwealth country to another signifies that the Government over which he presides agrees with every aspect of the domestic policies of the country he is visiting. For instance, the visit of Mr. Nash to the United Kingdom last month did not mean that the Labour Government in New Zealand agrees with the Conservative Government's opposition to Socialist theories and practices.
The fundamental basis upon which the relations of independent countries of the Commonwealth rest is that each member should be free to follow its own policies, both internal and external, without interference. Our obligation is to maintain the established practices regarding consultation in the external field and the transmission of the fullest information about those policies and actions which may be possible in each different case. That was the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, that was the intention of the Statute of Westminster, and that is, frankly, the principle which has been accepted by all Governments of all political complexions since the Commonwealth came into existence.
The logical consequence of the ideas which lie behind the Motion and the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the break-up of the Commonwealth. If that is their purpose, then they should say so. The attitude which they advocate the United Kingdom Government should take up with regard to the domestic policies of the Union of South Africa once accepted would logically and inevitably be extended to other differences which may arise between individual members of the Commonwealth over a wide variety of problems.
There has been reference to the fact that in recent years we gave independence


to Ghana and India. But let hon. Gentlemen opposite also remember that we gave independence to South Africa as well. The leaders of the party opposite know perfectly well that any United Kingdom Government which sought to intervene in matters which were the internal policy of Commonwealth Governments would be acting contrary to the whole spirit of the Commonwealth and would produce a reaction in the country at which the interference was aimed which would add strength to rather than modify the policies to which the United Kingdom Government might take exception.
The Opposition Front Bench is littered with fallen Ministerial timber. I can see two ex-Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and one ex-Colonial Secretary there. When they were in power they knew perfectly well what were the bases of the policies of the United Kingdom in respect of Commonwealth Governments and that they must be in accordance with the spirit of the Commonwealth if the Commonwealth is to continue as an organisation and a

force in the world. They knew that when in power. Having known that when in power, why do they support diametrically opposed policies when they are in opposition?

Mr. Callagham: Are the Government against apartheid?

Mr. Alport: I ask the House to consider the Motion and the Amendment, on those grounds, and I ask the House to support the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

Mr. Callaghan: Are the Government against apartheid or for it? Will the hon. Gentleman give us a clear answer to the question, "Are the Government in favour of apartheid or opposed to it?"—or are the Government too ashamed and too cowardly to give us a clear answer to it?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 341.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.


Ainsley, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Denis


Albu, Austen
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deer, George
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Awbery, Stan
Delargy, Hugh
Hilton, A. V.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy


Baird, John
Diamond, John
Holt, Arthur


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Donnelly, Desmond
Howell, Charles A.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Driberg, Tom
Hoy, James H.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'I,S.E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, Sir George
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blyton, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hunter, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)




Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bowles, Frank
Evans, Albert
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Boyden, James
Fernyhough, E.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Finch, Harold
Janner, Barnett


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fitch, Alan
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Jeger, George


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Foot, Dingle
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Callaghan, James
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Carmichael, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chetwynd, George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kelley, Richard


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Kenyon, Clifford


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grimond, J.
Lawson, George


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gunter, Ray
Ledger, Ron


Cronin, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Crosland, Anthony
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)


Darling, George
Hannan, William
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)




Lipton, Marcus
Paton, John
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Logan, David
Pavitt, Laurence
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Frederick
Swingler, Stephen


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Sylvester, George


MacColl, James
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McInnes, James
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


McLeavy, Frank
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Mahon, Simon
Rankin, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Redhead, E. C.
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Reid, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Manuel, A. C.
Reynolds, G. W.
Wade, Donald


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, H.
Wainwright, Edwin


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Warbey, William


Marsh, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, Tudor


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Millan, Bruce
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Monslow, Walter
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitlock, William


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Morris, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Mort, D. L.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Moyle, Arthur
Small, William
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Mulley, Frederick
Smith, Eills, (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Neal, Harold
Snow, Julian
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Winterbottom, R. E.


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Owen, Will
Steele, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, William
Zilliacus, K.


Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John



Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Aitken, W. T.
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Allason, James
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Erroll, F. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Farr, John


Amory,Rt.Hn.D.Heathcoat(Tlv'tn)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fell, Anthony


Arbuthnot, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Chataway, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Forrest, George


Barber, Anthony
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Foster, John


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Barter, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Batsford, Brian
Cleaver, Leonard
Freeth, Denzil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Collard, Richard
Gammans, Lady


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooper, A. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gibson-Watt, David


Berkeley, Humphry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glover, Douglas


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Cordle, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bidgood, John C.
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)


Biggs Davison, John
Coulson, J. M.
Godber, J. B.


Bingham, R. M.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor


Bishop, F. P.
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)


Bossom, Clive
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cunningham, Knox
Green, Alan


Box, Donald
Curran, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Currie, G. B. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dance, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Brewis, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
de Ferranti, Basil
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccisf'd)


Bullard, Denys
du Cann, Edward
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Duncan, Sir James
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Burden, F. A.
Duthie, Sir William
Hay, John







Head, Rt. Hon. Antony
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Russell, Ronald


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McMaster, Stanley
Scott-Hopkins, James


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Seymour, Leslie


Hendry, A. Forbes
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Sharples, Richard


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Shepherd, William


Hiley, Joseph
Maddan, Martin
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maginnis, John E.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smithers, Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, Anthony
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hobson, John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hocking, Philip N.
Marshall, Douglas
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Holland, Philip
Marten, Neil
Speir, Rupert


Holland-Martin, Christopher
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hollingworth, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hopkins, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, J. A.


Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Mills, Stratton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Talbot, John E.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morgan, William
Topsail, Peter


Hughes-Young, Michael
Morrison, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nabarro, Gerald
Teeling, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jackson, John
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


James, David
Nugent, Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Thompson Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


JohnsonSmith,G.(Holb.&amp;S.P'ncr's,S.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turner, Colin


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Page, Graham
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kaberry, Donald
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Partridge, E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peel, John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kitson, Timothy
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Wall, Patrick


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, J.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pott, Percivall
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Horald


Leavey, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Watts, James


Leburn, Gilmour
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Webster, David


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. Alan
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Whitelaw, William


Lindsay, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Profumo, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ramsden, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wise, Alfred


Longbottom, Charles
Rees, Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, David
Woodhouse, C. M.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Woollam, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Geoffrey
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Stephen
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


MacArthur, Ian
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)



McLaren, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Roots, William
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner. Col. Sir Leonard

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 239.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Balniel, Lord


Aitken, W. T.
Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tiv'tn)
Barber, Anthony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John


Allason, James
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barter, John


Alpert, C. J. M.
Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian




Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
Longbottom, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert


Berkeley, Humphry
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys, Walter H.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Glover, Douglas
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bidgood, John C.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bingham, R. M.
Godber, J. B.
McAdden, Stephen


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Gower, Raymond
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bossom, Clive
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N.Ayrs)


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)



Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Brewis, John
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maddan,Martin


Brooman-White, R.
Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Maginnis, John E.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marlowe, Anthony


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marshall, Douglas


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Marten, Neil


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Head, Rt. Hon. Antony
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mawby, Ray


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hendry, A. Forbes
Mills, Stratton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hobson, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Neave, Airey


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Harmar


Cole, Norman
Holland-Martin, Christopher
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Collard, Richard
Hollingworth, John
Noble, Michael


Cooke, Robert
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nugent, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Hopkins, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hornby, R. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patrioia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cordle, John
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Costain, A. P.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Coulson, J. M.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Critchley, Julian
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Partridge, E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Cunningham, Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Curran, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Jackson, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Dance, James
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, J. C.
Pitman, I. J.


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Pott, Percivall


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson Smith,G.(Holb.&amp;S.P'ncr's,S)
Powell, J. Enoch


Doughty, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Slr Keith
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Kaberry, Donald
Prior, J. M. L.


Duncan, Sir James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Duthie, Sir William
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Profumo, John


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, James


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Peter


Erroll, F. J.
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Hugh


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lagden, Godfrey
Renton, David


Farr, John
Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian


Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool,S.)


Forrest, George
Leburn, Gilmour
Robson Brown, Sir William


Foster, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roots, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lindsay, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)







Russell, Ronald
Talbot, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Seymour, Leslie
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Sharples, Richard
Teeling, William
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Watts, James


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Webster, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Whitelaw, William


Smithers Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Willis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speir, Rupert
Turner, Colin
Wise, Alfred


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stevens, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Stodart, J. A.
Vane, W. M. F.
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Woollam, John


Storey, S.
Vickers, Miss Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Ainsley, William
Evans, Albert
Lawson, George


Albu, Austen
Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fitch, Alan
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Awbery, Stan
Fletcher, Eric
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foot, Dingle
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Baird, John
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshlre, W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Logan, David


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Benn. Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brlstol,S.E.)
Gooch, E. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benson, Sir George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, John


Blackburn, F.
Gourley, Harry
MacColl, James


Blyton, William
Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Walisend)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McLeavy, Frank


Bowles, Frank
Grimond, J.
MacPherson,, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boyden, James
Gunter, Ray
Mahon, Simon


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, A. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hayman, F. H.
Marsh, Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Denis
Mason, Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher


Callaghan, James
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mellish, R. J.


Carmichael, James
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mendelson, J. J.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Chapman, Donald
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Chetwynd, George
Holt, Arthur
Moody, A. S.


Cliffe, Michael
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John


Collick, Percy
Howell, Charles A.
Mort, D. L


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, James H.
Moyle, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Frederick


Cronin, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Dram, A. E.


Darling, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Owen, Will


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Janner, Barnett
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Deer, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paton, John


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Diamond, John
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Peart, Frederick


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Prentice, R. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, Clifford
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry







Rankin, John
Stewart Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, David


Redhead, E. C.
Stonehouse, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Reld, William
Stones, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Reynolds, G. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Rhodes, H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Robens, Rt, Hon. Alfred
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ross, William
Sylvester, George
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Royle, Charles (Safford, West)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wyatt, Woodrow


Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)
Tomney, Frank
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Snow, Julian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Zilliacus, K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wade, Donald



Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Warbey, William
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.


Steele, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination by all means within their power.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Western European (Immunities and Privileges) Order. 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th November.
One of the outcomes of the revision of the Brussels Treaty in 1954 was the establishment of the Arms Control Agency of Western European Union. The Revised Treaty declared that there should be provision for due process of law in respect of the activities of that Agency. The Agency was given the fullest powers to inspect factories and examine all documents, including specifications, orders, and so on, of any arms company it was investigating. The investigators, if they were to do their job properly, were bound to come across secret commercial information, special techniques and other confidential information of importance to the companies.
It might be thought that some of this information was being misused by members of the Agency, but no individual or company would be able to sue the Agency since it is an organ of Western European Union which is immune from legal process. It was therefore decided that private individuals and companies should be provided with a means of recourse to law against the Agency. In December, 1957, the Governments of the members of Western European Union signed a Convention establishing a tribunal for this purpose. The Tribunal cannot be set up until all member governments have ratified the Convention which provides for certain immunities and privileges. These were not catered for in the original Immunities and Privileges Order of July 1955, relating to Western European Union, because at that time the Convention had not been signed.
The Order, therefore, revokes that earlier Order and re-enacts it to include the judges, of whom there will be three, and the Clerk of the Tribunal. The immunities are very limited and only

apply to the three judges and the Clerk of the Tribunal. They are to be given immunity from suit and legal process and, if they are British, this immunity is limited to official acts only. The only other immunity granted is exemption from Income Tax on official salaries. All income from other sources is subject to taxation.
It is most unlikely that the Tribunal will operate in this country at all. It will be based in Paris, and the cases with which it will deal will concern the mainland of Europe principally. As a Member of the Western European Union, however, we have signed the Convention. We cannot ratify it until this Order is made. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel able to approve the small and limited privileges which the Order seeks to give.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Minister has concentrated his observations on only a small part of the Order that we are considering. Speaking for myself, I would have no objection. On the contrary, I would highly applaud the conferring of immunities on members of a tribunal who are entrusted with this delicate and difficult jurisdiction. The Order, however, confers a wide variety of immunities.
From time to time, we come to the House and we enlarge the scope of those persons in this country who are privileged beyond the other people whom they meet and converse with and with whom they have dealings in our communal life. It occurs to me to ask how far all this is going. How many people are we to meet in our daily journeys along the streets who, if we stopped and asked them, would be bound to concede that they do not have to pay Income Tax lawfully—I do not mean unlawfully; who can say exactly what they like about us without our being able to bring any action against them, however defamatory their utterances, and who have a wide variety of privileges and immunities spread over Orders like the one we are considering tonight in an almost infinite variety? It becomes a matter of interest to wonder how many such persons there are in the 50 million people who live in our islands. There are not 50 million yet—I suppose it will take some time before they reach that


figure—but the figure is enlarging itself rapidly every year.
Having had, if I may so describe it, my grumble, I quite understand that this sort of Order is unavoidable. Not only is it unavoidable, but it is very useful, because it marks the growing influence in our destinies which is exerted by these international bodies. That is something for the good, and I recognise that the Order is necessary.
I would the more readily recognise that it was necessary if I could understand all of it. I have studied it, but I find great difficulty in understanding a great deal of it. Paragraph 2 confers immunity on the organisation as a whole. The organsation is the Western European Union, and paragraph 2 confers on that organisation a privileged position. There is, however, a provision for waiver of that immunity. That, however, is subject to this exception:
No waiver of immunity shall be deemed to extend to any measure of execution or detention of property.
I hope that that does not mean execution of human beings. If it means execution of property, I do not understand what that phrase connotes, and I would be glad if the Minister would be so good as to tell us.
Then, I look down and I see what, to me, is most puzzling language in paragraphs 7 and 8. If I may, if any hon. Member feels in the mood for a kind of crossword puzzle, I would like to read paragraph 7:
Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Government of the member whom they represent
certain consequences are to follow. What on earth do the words "whom they represent" in that context mean? Who is "they"? To whom is the word "whom" relative in that context? When we look at paragraph 8, we find another variant of it. The plural "whom they represent" in paragraph 8 has become transformed into a singular in a very similar context, "whom he represents," but singular and plural seem to me to present the same mystery and to be equally incapable of determination.
Possibly my inability to understand is partly owing to my own limited capacity

in that respect and partly owing to the lateness of the hour, but if the Minister will satisfy me that it is due solely to those two causes and that any fresher and other mind than mine would easily penetrate that mystery, I certainly would support the Order with much more peace of mind. I hope that when the Minister obtains the necessary spiritual assistance from the advisers in the Box, he will be able to enlighten me on this.

10.35 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: Before my hon. Friend replies to the questions which have been put to him by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I should like to ask a rather more fundamental question. At the close of his short remarks, he said that this Order is necessary as a preliminary to the ratification of the Agreement which we signed in December, 1957. As the House is aware, the long delay in the ratification of this Agreement has been a source of great concern not only in this country but, I think I am right in saying, in the whole of the Western European Union Assembly.
I should like to know whether we can assume that, in the event of the House approving this Order tonight, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement in the very near future.

10.36 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland: The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that this Order referred only to the mainland of Europe. I always thought that this country, which is a member of Western European Union, was included. Would he please develop the point?

10.37 p.m.

Mr. R. Allan: If I may answer first the last question, asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland), the part of the Order to which I was referring related to the Arms Control Agency, the authority of which under the Revised Treaty is limited to the mainland of Europe. It would not, in fact, normally operate in the United Kingdom at all.
In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East


(Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), it is indeed the intention of the Government to ratify this Convention as soon as possible, and this is an essential preliminary in the process of ratification. In fact, I think I am right in saying that no country has yet done it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) put me in a very embarrassing position in having to try to instruct him, of all people, in the meaning of legal phrases. Before I come to his specific questions, may I say that I quite understand his grumble. Indeed, I have a sneaking sympathy with him. We do our best to see that these immunities and privileges are kept to the minimum and are offered to the fewest number of people consonant with our international obligations. I do not know the total number of people who enjoy these privileges, but this Order extends it by only four.
On the two questions which he asked—and he was good enough to give me some indication of what was worrying him before the debate—"execution" means, as I think he knows very well, the legal procedures for the enforcement of a judgment—for instance, the seizing and selling of the organisation's goods to satisfy judgment for damages against it. In other words, they can operate their waiver, but not in that respect. This is, I am told, the standard provision in agreements of this sort. It is analogous to the position of ambassadors, who may waive their immunity and be sued but cannot have their embassies sold up for the debt. This is an analogous position for this tribunal.
As to the other questions relating to Articles 7 and 8, in each case the person who is represented is the representative mentioned in the Article. In the case of Article 7, it is the principal permanent representative, and in the case of Article 8 representatives of the Council, Ministers and so on.
I am sorry to say that there has been a misprint, and it should be expressed in the singular. The first "whom they represent" should therefore read "whom he represents," while the second case is correctly put in the singular. I will undertake to see that that printing error is corrected before the Order is finally made.

Sir F. Soskice: I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation. I suspected that some slight error lurked in the wording. However, whilst I do not seek in any way to be obstructive or difficult, I am left wondering whether, consistently with the statutory procedure applicable in this case, the error can be rectified without withdrawing and re-laying the Order. It is, of course, for the Minister to say, but I am not quite sure what power there is, once an Order has been made in draft, to amend it in that form. So far as I know, there is no power to amend an Order.
I do not oppose the Order in its present form, except to say that if the court were trying to interpret it it would come to the conclusion that there was an error but could only interpret the Order as worded. It would be somewhat unfortunate if we were to agree to an Order that had in it a typographical error that introduced confusion.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to that, and I do apologise to him and to the House for this printers' error. In fact, I am informed that I was exceeding my authority when I said that I would see that it was corrected before the Order was made. I am told that that cannot be done, in which case I am afraid I must beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES, LAKE DISTRICT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Whitelaw.]

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I should like to draw attention to a problem affecting my constituency, namely, electricity supplies to the Lakeland area of my Division and to Maryport. Only on Saturday, I noticed in the Guardian that the whole question of priorities for the Lakeland has been raised. The Guardian said:
For the first time since nationalisation eleven years ago, leaders of more than one and a half million North-west power consumers are to make a protest at national level against a decision taken by the area Electricity Board. The dispute concerns the order of priority in which power supplies should be taken to the Lake District.
I believe that the dispute will involve not only my own Division but that of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
Priority for the Lakeland area has been a matter of concern for a very long time. I have raised it over and over again—and not as a party question. I have criticised my own Ministers, and if there is any delay even now I will criticise the present Ministers. I first raised the subject in 1950 with the then Minister of Fuel and Power. I was told that my constituents would have to wait for electricity until the capital investment programme had been worked out, when development could proceed; and hat the whole matter would be kept under review. I was not satisfied with that answer, and in 1951 I again raised the whole issue on the Adjournment.
I was told that the reason why my constituents would have to wait for electricity, why the whole of the Borrowdale area would have to wait, was first, the shortage of raw materials, and, secondly, the shortage of labour. Again I was told by the Minister that there was a limitation on capital expenditure and capital investment. All through those debates and those discussions with Ministers I was told that my constituents had their sympathy. However, in 1953 I raised this again in a general debate dealing with rural electrification,

and again I got the same answer. On 4th May, 1954, I raised again the whole issue on the Adjournment. That was followed by another debate last year, on 27th June.
I am not going to repeat all the details about my area. I believe they are known to the Minister, and they are certainly known to the Department. All I will say is that the area in question is a very famous tourist area. The people in the Borrowdale, Buttermere and Loweswater Valleys cater every year for visitors from all over the British Isles and, indeed, from all over the world. So we are asking that my constituents should enjoy amenities so that they may be able to run their businesses well, to cater for the visitors who come to our lovely valleys.
When I raised this issue on 27th June, 1958, I had a rather unsympathetic reply from the then Parliamentary Secretary, Sir Ian Horobin. He argued that we could not go ahead with further electrification in parts of the area because of cost. He said:
In fairness to all concerned, one must bear in mind that the remaining connections are extremely expensive and that must be considered when deciding which areas are to be done next and how far to go."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT: 27th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 846.]
This argument was repeated when my right hon. Friend the former Member for Bishop Auckland intervened. The Parliamentary Secretary argued that in this area of Buttermere, Loweswater and Bullgill
the expenses are now so high and the returns so low."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 27th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 847.]
He repeated the argument a few moments later:
The reason for this low priority here is that, because the expense is so high and the possible return so low, it is better to do other areas first."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 848.]
I intervened to argue:
That cost argument means that these remote areas can never hope to get anything, because of priorities given to other areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 848.]
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tonight repeat the cost argument of his predecessor. As I have tried to show over and over again when we have argued this question of Borrowdale, Buttermere and Loweswater and


the Lakeland valleys, we have always argued that the area should be treated as a unit. Borrowdale, for example, should be treated as a whole and the cost should be shared. That was why, when it was decided to electrify the valley—part of the valley has been electrified —we were rather dismayed that the scheme for the whole valley was not completed. As I press tonight the claims of these areas and other parts which lie on the fringe of Lakeland, parts of Cockermouth Rural District, areas like Embleton, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not use the cost argument. I believe that, after all, there is now a great opportunity for the Ministry to go ahead with an imaginative policy.
I ask the Government to say to the North Western Electricity Board that it will have no restriction on capital investment and that manpower will be available. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that that manpower would be available. Indeed, near the Lakeland area, there is a serious unemployment problem in the West Cumberland Development Area. I am pretty certain that there could be no argument now about the manpower not being forthcoming.
I am not criticising the Board's general policy. I know from figures supplied to me by the Board that much has been done in the area. Figures from the North Western Electricity Board for the Lakeland sub-area show that during the year ending 31st March 346 farms and over 1,500 rural premises were connected to the electricity supply. In the same period approximately £255,000 were spent on rural electrification. Therefore, I accept that much has been done but, as I have tried to argue tonight, as I have done so often on previous occasions, the areas which I have mentioned were promised something over and over again by Ministers from both sides of the House.
I ask that in this period when a labour supply is available and when, I hope, there will be a surge forward in the economy, this area can be given a high measure of priority. I know that the supply is badly needed. For example, this summer, because of the very dry season, some of the hotels in the area in the Borrowdale Valley, which has not been electrified, faced serious problems arising from the shortage of water

because the hotels were generating their own electricity from turbines driven by waterfalls. For a long period these good hotels in the Lakeland area had to use oil lamps and candles, and great inconvenience was caused not only to hotel owners but also to their guests.
This is just a small instance which illustrates the difficulties in a lovely Lakeland area which is one of our great tourists centres and needs to attract tourists to it over and over again. The hotels need modern amenities provided by electricity, and still they are not available. I therefore plead very strongly for this area in which I certainly have an interest since it is my own constituency. But I can also cite an urban area in my constituency. I have had correspondence from Maryport Urban District Council.
The town clerk wrote to me on 26th October last saying:
For some considerable time now my Council have been pressing the North-Western Electricity Board to have the electricity supply extended in the King Street area in order to enable all the residents of this neighbourhood to have a supply of electricity in their homes.
Therefore, I am pleading not only for the quick electrification of our Lakeland valleys, for a speeding up of the plans to electrify Borrowdale, Loweswater and Buttermere and the rural areas round them, but also that the Board should get along quickly with this scheme which is needed by residents of this part of Maryport. I have quoted the town clerk's letter and I believe it is important.
I have argued that there is no reason why plans should not go ahead. I know that it is not an easy matter. I understand that even in London there are many houses virtually within a stone's throw of the Houses of Parliament which are still relying on gas and still have no electricity supply. There the people cannot enjoy the amenities of television and radio in the sense of having sets powered by electricity. It seems fantastic that in our great cities and even in smaller towns like Maryport there are not proper electricity supplies.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, unlike his predecessor, will be sympathetic and not argue about costs but say that the Ministry is anxious that the North-Western Electricity Board and boards in similar areas should go ahead


quickly and that rural electrification should have a high priority from the point of view not only of the tourist industry but of the farmers and other citizens in the area, who are, after all, worthy of modern amenities.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has shown great pertinacity in pressing this question year after year. He has no doubt at all about the road that he wants to follow. If some hon. Members opposite are talking about "switches" in policy, he apparently is determined to carry on with his "switch on" policy.
I feel that this continuous repetition—justified, I am sure, in his own mind—could create doubt in the minds of the public and the feeling that the North Western Electricity Board is not as diligent in carrying out its duties in rural electrification as it should be. Therefore, inevitably I must go along some of the road already travelled by my predecessors.
The hon. Member knows—he said so in his speech—that the Board is not neglectful, but to convince those who might read what he has said and not know what he knows I must look at the broad general picture of rural electrification. The hon. Member must know to some extent what I am about to say, that this is a national problem and many parts of the country have the same worries as he has.
It was recognised as a national problem in 1953, and a 10 year plan for England and Wales was drawn up then. It was hoped to have 85 per cent. of all farms electrified at the end of the 10 years. The target was to be 57,000 farms and 250,000 other rural houses at the end of the first five years. Seventy per cent. of all farms and 85 per cent. of all other rural houses would then be electrified. As the hon. Members knows, the first half of the 10-year plan was completed in September, 1957, six months ahead of schedule.
I now want to bring the hon. Member right up to date. These facts he will not know. In September, 1959, over 78 per cent. of all the farms in England and Wales had a mains supply of electricity.

For the purpose of comparison and to show how the North Western Board stands in this respect, on the same date 86·3 per cent. of all the farms in its area had a supply of electricity. That will demonstrate that the Board has not been slow in carrying out its plans for rural electrification. These figures are the Board's figures. I admit that, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are black spots, and Lakeland is the North Western Board's problem district.
Dealing with his point about the extension for a street in Maryport, I think he will agree that that is a matter for the Consultative Council, and I would press him to ask his local council to place it there. I am trying in general to concentrate on making the Consultative Councils real units in this industry.

Mr. Peart: The Maryport Council has taken the matter up with the people who actually do the job, the representatives of the Board in the area—not just the Consultative Council. I have correspondence to prove that.

Mr. George: I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, hut I will look into the matter. If the Consultative Council has not been consulted, I would ask him to see that it is.
He talked about my predecessor's stressing costs. The Board is saddled with a duty to balance its accounts taking one year with another, and it has to have regard to costs. All that Sir Ian Horobin was saying was that in those circumstances, where the Board has to make ends meet it must have regard to those schemes which will bring in a reasonable return in the first place, and it must create an order of priorities in order to make sure that as far as possible its operations are remunerative. He was not saying—as the hon. Member implied—that the people in the areas for whom he was appealing had no hope of getting a supply in the future. That was not the intention of my predecessor. He was pointing out that the Board must equate its accounts, and to that extent must have regard to costs.
I shall not deal with that matter this evening; I shall try to help the hon. Member by talking mainly of his own area. He raised the question of the whole Cumberland district, but I shall confine myself to the West Lakeland


district, which covers West Cumberland. First, I would make one observation on the question of costs. Rural electrification is costly; some cases show a meagre return but many cases show a very heavy loss, and the Board must make that loss good from some source. To a certain extent, therefore, other consumers are supporting rural electrification, and there is a limit to the burden they can bear. The best way to speed up rural electrification is for the consumers who are already enjoying a connection to use more electricity.
I would draw the hon. Member's attention to a recent survey of 10,000 farms, whose usage of electricity was checked. In 18 per cent. less than five units per quarter were consumed for farming purposes; in 50 per cent. less than 100 units were consumed, and in 60 per cent. less than 200 units were consumed, as compared with the average domestic consumer's usage of 466 units per quarter. If those who are connected could use more electricity, as they should, the way would be open for a better return on the money expended, and rural electrification would become more attractive economically. I hope the hon. Member will use his influence in the rural areas which are electrified to get the consumption increased, so as to assist other districts which have not got a supply yet.

Mr. Peart: Certainly I will use my influence to get them to consume more, but I expect the hon. Member to use his influence to enable some of my constituents to consume electricity who do not consume any at all yet.

Mr. George: I hope to have something to say on that later.
Returning to the general situation, the North-West is in quite a good position. The number of farms connected rose from 13,000, or 52 per cent., in March, 1948, to 21,000, or 86·3 per cent., on 30th September, 1959. The hon. Member knows the reasons for the Board's difficulties; they have been explained in many previous debates. There is the mountainous nature of the district, the sparse population in some areas, amenity difficulties, and the fact that this area was in a bad way when the Board first took over. It had not gone very far along the road of rural electrification before nationalisation.
But the Board has been pressing on. Capital development has risen steadily. In 1955–56 it was £220,000; in 1956–57, it was £240,000; in 1957–58, it was £250,000, and in 1958–59, again £250,000. The expenditure is rising and, more than that, it has been increasing under a planned scheme. The hon. Gentleman knows about the zoning scheme which was debated last year. This will ensure that money is spent with more efficiency and economy and that the zones will be taken as a whole and cleared up. Once the labour and equipment is in a zone, it will stay there until all the work in the zone is completed.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the Borrowdale area to be treated as a whole. Indeed, it is being treated now as a whole. In many cases, hopelessly uneconomic farms can be connected because of the zoning scheme, and this has the full support of the Consultative Council. The hon. Gentleman wished to know about the programme drawn up in the zoning scheme. He has seen the map showing the zones, but I will make it as simple as I can. Three stages have been agreed upon. Stage one, Frizington, near Workington, Zone 42; stage two, Cockermouth, North-West, including Maryport; stage three, Borrowdale, Buttermere and Loweswater. These are the zones which are of interest to the hon. Member.
The zoning programme was drawn up last year. There were some delays because of jobs which the Board had promised to complete by a certain date, and the work was also held up because of restrictions on capital. But more money is now available and the work is going ahead. This is the programme to date. In Zone 42, at Frizington, which is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the work will be finished this month. In Zone 44, Cockermouth North-West, the work which was started in October, will be completed early in 1961. In Zone 47, Borrowdale, Buttermere and Loweswater, a start was made in November and it is hoped it will be completed in mid-1961. This leaves one small section of the old scheme on the east side of Derwentwater, from Grange to Barrow House. The Board is making an exception in this part of Zone 46 as the plant is near the district. Work will be started in the spring and it is hoped to complete it in the summer.
That is the programme up-to-date, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman may now see an end to his battle. It may be that his words have had something to do with the decisions of the Board, although I believe that he has been helped by hon. Friends of mine. I can assure him that the Minister has never interfered or tried to influence the detailed programme of the Board. He never interferes in the Board's administration in that way. I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction and that this will see the end of these recurring debates on the subject of Lakeland electricity.

Mr. Peart: I wish to thank the Minister. He has given me a much

better reply than I have ever received before. I agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have helped in this matter. The hon. Member for West-morland (Mr. Vane), who is now Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, has spoken on this matter, and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) is interested in this area. We are glad that there is progress, but the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is right that we should press the matter in this House because it is here that the responsibility lies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.